Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs GeForce 840M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 840M and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 840M
2014
4 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
2.85

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) outperforms 840M by a whopping 264% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking795441
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.95no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code nameGM108Meteor Lake iGPU
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date12 March 2014 (10 years ago)14 December 2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores3844
Core clock speed1029 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1124 MHz1950 MHz
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Wattno data
Texture fill rate17.98no data
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8no data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1001 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth16.02 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12_2
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 840M 2.85
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 10.38
+264%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce 840M 2340
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 6776
+190%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce 840M 1573
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 5295
+237%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce 840M 8724
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 29765
+241%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce 840M 119888
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 295187
+146%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p45
−256%
160−170
+256%
Full HD18
−38.9%
25
+38.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−30%
13
+30%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Elden Ring 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−386%
30−35
+386%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−10%
11
+10%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−257%
50
+257%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−170%
27−30
+170%
Valorant 0−1 35−40

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−386%
30−35
+386%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−30%
13
+30%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Dota 2 7−8
−114%
15
+114%
Elden Ring 5−6
−500%
30−33
+500%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−50%
24
+50%
Fortnite 16−18
−281%
60−65
+281%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−179%
39
+179%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9
−87.5%
15
+87.5%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−460%
27−30
+460%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−208%
80−85
+208%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−170%
27−30
+170%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−138%
30−35
+138%
Valorant 0−1 35−40
World of Tanks 46
−224%
140−150
+224%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−386%
30−35
+386%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−90%
18−20
+90%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Dota 2 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−163%
40−45
+163%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−114%
30
+114%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−208%
80−85
+208%
Valorant 0−1 35−40

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 0−1 12−14
Elden Ring 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
−145%
45−50
+145%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
World of Tanks 18−20
−295%
75−80
+295%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−229%
21−24
+229%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 21−24
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−225%
12−14
+225%
Valorant 9−10
−189%
24−27
+189%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Elden Ring 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−33.3%
20−22
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−33.3%
20−22
+33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Dota 2 16−18
−244%
55−60
+244%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Fortnite 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%
Valorant 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

This is how GeForce 840M and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:

  • Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 256% faster in 900p
  • Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 39% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is ahead in 43 tests (83%)
  • there's a draw in 9 tests (17%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.85 10.38
Recency 12 March 2014 14 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 264.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 840M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GeForce 840M
Intel Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 948 votes

Rate GeForce 840M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 10 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.