Intel Arc 140V Mobile vs Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc 140V Mobile and the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. Both entries carry no benchmark scores, no average scores, and no nearest rivals. The wins counter for each part is zero. This means the comparison must be built entirely from the architectural and specification records in the database.

The largest mathematical advantage for the Arc 140V sits in its raw execution resources. It records 1024 shading units against 256 for the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, a 4x difference. That same 4x ratio carries through the texture units (64 versus 16) and the render output units (32 versus 8). The FP32 compute rate is 3.994 TFLOPS versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS, which is roughly 3.12x higher. The pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s versus 20.00 GPixel/s, a 3.12x margin. The texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s versus 40.00 GTexel/s, again a 3.12x gap. Ray tracing cores count 8 versus 2, a 4x difference. FP16 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1), a 3.12x lead.

The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile does hold one clear clock advantage. Its boost clock is 2500 MHz, while the Arc 140V boosts to 1950 MHz. That is a 28.2% higher boost frequency. The base clocks are identical at 300 MHz. The smaller chip uses fewer execution units, which allows the higher boost, but the sheer resource deficit means the clock advantage cannot close the compute gap. Even at a 28.2% higher boost, the FP32 rate remains 3.12x lower.

Both parts sit at the 50th percentile in the database against all GPUs, and both have an average benchmark score of zero. With no recorded benchmark runs, the percentile fields are placeholders rather than measured outcomes. The data therefore cannot confirm real-world win rates. What the data does show is a structural hierarchy: the Arc 140V is the larger, faster part on paper, and the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is the smaller, lower-power part with a higher ceiling for clock speed.

Architecture Differences

The two chips belong to different architectures and different foundries. The Arc 140V Mobile uses the Lunar Lake chip with the Xe2-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile uses the Wildcat Lake chip with the Xe3-LPG architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. Both are integrated graphics parts (IGP) and both fall under the Arc Graphics-M generation family, but the generation names differ: Lunar Lake for the 140V and Wildcat Lake for the 2 Xe.

The die size record is only present for the Arc 140V, at 172 mm². The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile lists its die size as unknown, and both parts list transistor counts as unknown. The process node is the same nominal 3 nm, but the foundry differs, which can imply different transistor density and design rules. The database does not provide density figures for either part.

Memory architecture is identical in form. Both use System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. Neither part has dedicated VRAM. The memory clock field is also System Shared for both. This means memory performance is tied to the host platform, and the database records no specific bandwidth numbers for either.

The API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both parts support the same modern graphics APIs. The display outputs are also the same, listed as Portable Device Dependent. Both are integrated into portable devices, so the display connectivity depends on the laptop or handheld design.

The release dates differ significantly. The Arc 140V launched on 2024-09-23, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile launched on 2026-04-15. That places the Wildcat Lake part roughly 19 months later. Both are listed as Active production status, and both share the same predecessor, HD Graphics-M. Neither has a successor listed.

Power connectors differ. The Arc 140V lists no power connector data, while the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile explicitly lists None, consistent with an IGP. The TDP is 37 W for the Arc 140V and 25 W for the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile, a 12 W difference. That lower TDP aligns with the smaller execution unit count.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc 140V Mobile records 1024 shading units, while the Intel Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile records 256. That is a 4x difference in shading unit count.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile boosts to 2500 MHz, while the Arc 140V boosts to 1950 MHz. The smaller part runs 550 MHz higher at boost.

Q: Which part has a higher FP32 compute rate?

A: The Arc 140V delivers 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus 1,280.0 GFLOPS for the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. The Arc 140V is approximately 3.12x higher.

Q: Are the TDPs different?

A: Yes. The Arc 140V is rated at 37 W, and the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile is rated at 25 W.

Q: Do both use the same memory type?

A: Both use System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. Neither has dedicated memory.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The Arc 140V launched on 2024-09-23, and the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile launched on 2026-04-15.

Specification Differences

The database records the following fields where the two parts differ:

• Chip: Arc 140V uses Lunar Lake; Arc Graphics 2 Xe uses Wildcat Lake.
• Architecture: Arc 140V uses Xe2-LPG; Arc Graphics 2 Xe uses Xe3-LPG.
• Foundry: Arc 140V is TSMC; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is Intel.
• Die Size: Arc 140V is 172 mm²; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is unknown.
• Boost Clock: Arc 140V is 1950 MHz; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is 2500 MHz.
• Shading Units: Arc 140V has 1024; Arc Graphics 2 Xe has 256.
• TMUs: Arc 140V has 64; Arc Graphics 2 Xe has 16.
• ROPs: Arc 140V has 32; Arc Graphics 2 Xe has 8.
• RT Cores: Arc 140V has 8; Arc Graphics 2 Xe has 2.
• Pixel Rate: Arc 140V is 62.40 GPixel/s; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is 20.00 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Arc 140V is 124.8 GTexel/s; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is 40.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Arc 140V is 3.994 TFLOPS; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is 1,280.0 GFLOPS.
• FP16: Arc 140V is 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1); Arc Graphics 2 Xe is 2.560 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: Arc 140V is 37 W; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is 25 W.
• Power Connectors: Arc 140V has no record; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is None.
• Release Date: Arc 140V is 2024-09-23; Arc Graphics 2 Xe is 2026-04-15.

Fields that are identical: process node (3 nm for both), base clock (300 MHz for both), memory size/type/bus width/bandwidth (System Shared / System Dependent for both), slot width (IGP for both), bus interface (IGP for both), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent for both), DirectX (12 Ultimate 12_2 for both), OpenGL (4.6 for both), Vulkan (1.4 for both), production status (Active for both), predecessor (HD Graphics-M for both), and no successor for either.

Where Each One Wins

The Arc 140V Mobile wins in every computational throughput category recorded. It has 4x the shading units, 4x the texture units, 4x the ROPs, and 4x the ray tracing cores. Its FP32 rate of 3.994 TFLOPS is 3.12x the 1,280.0 GFLOPS of the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile. Its pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s is 3.12x the 20.00 GPixel/s of the smaller part. Its texture rate of 124.8 GTexel/s is 3.12x the 40.00 GTexel/s. FP16 throughput follows the same pattern, with 7.987 TFLOPS versus 2.560 TFLOPS.

The Arc 140V also carries a larger die at 172 mm², which supports the higher execution unit count. The higher TDP of 37 W versus 25 W indicates the larger part is allowed more power headroom, consistent with its greater resource pool. The earlier release date of 2024-09-23 means it has had a longer presence in the market, though the database does not record sales or adoption data.

The Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile wins on clock speed and power efficiency. Its boost clock of 2500 MHz is 28.2% higher than the 1950 MHz of the Arc 140V. That higher clock, combined with a 25 W TDP, suggests the smaller chip can achieve its peak frequency at a lower power envelope. The lower TDP also makes it suitable for thinner or more power-constrained portable designs, though the database does not specify device classes.

The newer architecture, Xe3-LPG, is a generation ahead of Xe2-LPG, and the Intel foundry process is a different manufacturing line than TSMC. The database does not provide performance-per-watt figures, so no direct efficiency comparison can be quantified. What the specs show is that the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile trades raw throughput for a higher clock ceiling and a lower power draw.

For workloads that stress raw fill rate, texture throughput, or ray tracing, the Arc 140V is the clear choice on paper. Its 3.12x to 4x advantages in every compute metric leave no ambiguity. For workloads that are clock-sensitive or where the platform power budget is tight, the Arc Graphics 2 Xe Mobile offers a higher boost frequency and a 12 W lower TDP. The data does not include game-specific or application-specific benchmarks, so the practical impact of these differences remains unquantified. The specification records alone define the two parts: one is a high-resource integrated GPU, the other is a lean, high-clock integrated GPU.