Intel Arc 140V Mobile vs Intel Arc A310E Comparison

Intel’s mobile and embedded graphics lines take two very different routes to similar goals. The Arc 140V Mobile is an integrated part of the Lunar Lake platform, built for thin laptops where power is scarce. The Arc A310E is a standalone, single-slot card from the Alchemist family, designed for small-form-factor systems and embedded use. The data shows two distinct interpretations of Intel’s GPU architecture, and the differences run deeper than just clock speeds or memory size.

FAQ

Q: What is the fundamental difference in how these two GPUs are installed?

A: The Arc 140V Mobile is an IGP, meaning it is integrated into the processor package and uses the system’s shared memory. The Arc A310E is a discrete single-slot card with its own 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, connected through a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, and what does that mean for raw compute?

A: The Arc 140V Mobile has 1024 shading units, while the Arc A310E has 768. The 140V also has 64 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, compared to 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs on the A310E, so the integrated chip has a structural advantage in both texture work and pixel output.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The Arc A310E runs at a fixed 2000 MHz for both base and boost. The Arc 140V Mobile has a 300 MHz base clock and boosts up to 1950 MHz, so the discrete card holds a slight peak clock lead but the integrated part has a much wider dynamic range.

Q: What is the memory situation for each?

A: The Arc A310E uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a 1937 MHz memory clock (15.5 Gbps effective). The Arc 140V Mobile uses system shared memory, so its capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are all dependent on the host laptop’s configuration.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient according to the recorded specifications?

A: The Arc 140V Mobile carries a 37 W TDP, while the Arc A310E is rated at 75 W. The integrated part draws roughly half the power of the discrete card, which aligns with its role in battery-powered devices.

Q: What is the production status of each product?

A: The Arc 140V Mobile is listed as Active, with a release date of September 2024. The Arc A310E is marked as End-of-life, released in March 2024, and lists Battlemage as its successor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architectural generations. The Arc 140V Mobile is built on the Xe2-LPG architecture, part of the Lunar Lake chip, and uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Arc A310E is based on the older Xe-HPG architecture, part of the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation, and uses a 6 nm TSMC process. This node difference is substantial: the 140V’s 3 nm process is two full steps ahead of the A310E’s 6 nm process, which gives the integrated part a significant density and efficiency advantage.

The die sizes tell an interesting story. The Arc 140V Mobile’s Lunar Lake die measures 172 mm², while the A310E’s DG2-128 die is 157 mm². The A310E packs 7,200 million transistors into that smaller area, giving it a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The 140V’s transistor count is listed as unknown, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the data. However, the 140V’s smaller process node would normally allow a higher density, and the fact that it fits more shading units (1024 vs 768) into a slightly larger die suggests a very different layout strategy.

Ray tracing hardware is present on both, but with different counts. The Arc 140V Mobile has 8 ray tracing cores, while the Arc A310E has 6. This gives the integrated part a 33% lead in RT core count, which could matter in workloads that scale well with additional RT units.

The power delivery and form factor are also fundamentally different. The Arc 140V Mobile is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no dimensions listed; it exists entirely within the host laptop. The Arc A310E is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, with no external power connectors and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The A310E is therefore a self-contained board that can fit into compact chassis, while the 140V is inseparable from its host system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two GPUs, and neither has recorded benchmark scores or rival comparisons. The analysis must therefore rely on the theoretical throughput figures provided in the specifications.

In raw compute, the Arc 140V Mobile delivers 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 3.072 TFLOPS for the Arc A310E. That is a 30% advantage for the integrated part. The FP16 figures follow the same pattern: 7.987 TFLOPS for the 140V versus 6.144 TFLOPS for the A310E, again a 30% lead. These numbers indicate that the 140V’s larger shading unit count (1024 vs 768) more than compensates for the A310E’s higher boost clock, even though the A310E runs at 2000 MHz versus the 140V’s 1950 MHz boost.

Texture and pixel throughput show an even larger gap. The Arc 140V Mobile reaches 124.8 GTexel/s, exactly double the A310E’s 64.00 GTexel/s. Pixel rate follows the same doubling: 62.40 GPixel/s for the 140V versus 32.00 GPixel/s for the A310E. This makes sense, as the 140V has exactly twice the TMUs (64 vs 32) and twice the ROPs (32 vs 16) of the A310E. The A310E’s higher clock cannot bridge a 2:1 hardware resource gap.

Memory bandwidth is where the discrete card fights back. The Arc A310E has a fixed 124.0 GB/s from its dedicated GDDR6 memory. The Arc 140V Mobile’s bandwidth is listed as system dependent, meaning it varies with the laptop’s memory configuration. The data does not give a specific number for the 140V, so a direct comparison is impossible. However, the A310E’s dedicated memory has a key advantage: it does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth. In a shared memory system, GPU memory traffic shares the same channels as the processor, which can introduce contention that a dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 pool avoids.

The clock behavior also differs. The A310E holds a constant 2000 MHz for both base and boost, suggesting a fixed, predictable performance envelope. The 140V starts at 300 MHz and boosts to 1950 MHz, implying aggressive power management that scales with workload. This makes the 140V well suited to bursty tasks, while the A310E should deliver steadier sustained performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The Arc 140V Mobile uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the Arc A310E uses 6 nm. The 140V has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. The A310E has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The 140V’s base clock is 300 MHz with a 1950 MHz boost; the A310E runs at 2000 MHz flat.

Memory is entirely different. The 140V uses system shared memory with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth. The A310E has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 140V’s FP32 throughput is 3.994 TFLOPS versus 3.072 TFLOPS for the A310E. Texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s, and pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The 140V is rated at 37 W TDP with an IGP slot width, while the A310E is 75 W, single-slot, 168 mm long, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The 140V has no power connectors and no dimensions; the A310E has no power connectors either but does have its own board. The 140V uses an IGP bus interface, while the A310E uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the 140V, whereas the A310E offers four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

The production status and release dates also differ. The 140V is Active and was released in September 2024, with a predecessor listed as HD Graphics-M. The A310E is End-of-life, released in March 2024, with a predecessor of Xe Graphics and a successor of Battlemage. Both share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to two different use cases rather than a clear winner. The Arc 140V Mobile is the stronger compute device on paper. Its 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 124.8 GTexel/s texture rate, and 62.40 GPixel/s pixel rate all exceed the A310E by 30% or more. It also draws 37 W versus 75 W, making it the more efficient part by a wide margin. For anyone working within the constraints of a laptop, the 140V is the better engine.

The Arc A310E has its own advantages. It offers dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which removes the variable of system memory contention. It has a fixed 2000 MHz clock, providing a stable performance profile. It comes as a physical single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it a practical choice for embedded systems or small form factor machines that need a discrete GPU without external power connectors. Its 75 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU requirement are modest for a discrete card.

The 140V’s system dependent memory is the main source of uncertainty. Its compute throughput is clearly higher, but that throughput depends on the host system providing adequate memory bandwidth. In a laptop with fast memory, the 140V should deliver its full potential. In a system with slower memory, the A310E’s dedicated GDDR6 could close the gap in memory-bound workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc 140V Mobile wins in raw compute, texture fill, pixel fill, and ray tracing core count. It is also the clear winner in power efficiency, with a 37 W TDP versus 75 W. Its 3 nm process and Xe2-LPG architecture represent a newer generation. The data suggests it is the better choice for compute-heavy tasks in a mobile context where the host memory is capable.

The Arc A310E wins on memory predictability, with fixed 4 GB GDDR6 and 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It wins on stable clock behavior, holding 2000 MHz at all times. It wins on physical integration, offering a standalone card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and no external power requirement beyond a 250 W PSU. Its 6 nm process and Xe-HPG architecture are older, but the dedicated memory and fixed clocks provide a consistent, repeatable platform.

The production status also matters. The 140V is Active, indicating ongoing availability and support. The A310E is End-of-life, with Battlemage listed as its successor. For new designs, the 140V represents the current generation, while the A310E is a legacy product. The recorded data does not include benchmark scores or rival comparisons for either GPU, so the analysis rests on architectural and theoretical specifications. Within those bounds, the 140V is the stronger performer, and the A310E is the more self-contained and predictable option.