Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs Quadro NVS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 160M with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 2656% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1291 | 451 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.12 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Xe LPG (2023) |
| GPU code name | G98 | Meteor Lake iGPU |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2008 (16 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 cores | 8 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.640 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0232 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | no 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).
| Interface | MXM-I | no 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 type | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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:
| Full HD | 0−1 | 25 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50
+1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−386%
|
30−35
+386%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−241%
|
90−95
+241%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−2400%
|
350−400
+2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−2600%
|
270−280
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1200%
|
39
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−386%
|
30−35
+386%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−241%
|
90−95
+241%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−2600%
|
270−280
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−900%
|
30
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−386%
|
30−35
+386%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−241%
|
90−95
+241%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1467%
|
45−50
+1467%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 14−16 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 2200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is ahead in 18 tests (32%)
- there's a draw in 39 tests (68%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.32 | 8.82 |
| Recency | 15 August 2008 | 14 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 2656.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
