NVIDIA
GeForce GT 130 vs Intel Arc 140T
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
Intel
Arc 140T
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GT 130 and Arc 140T across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Arc 140T outperforms GT 130 by ~72% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+72%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Partially verifiedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 16Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Equal catalog scores
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider GT 130
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Arc 140T
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · Intel XeSS
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
IntelPerformance
3967
Graphics card ranking
Positions 220–225of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce GT 130
168 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
39
67Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
34
55Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
32
52Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
50
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
57
57
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Recommended PSU
Length
Power consumption—
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPS
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Launch price—
Clock speed
Base clock
Boost clockBetter
VRAM
Memory frequency
Memory bus
Memory bandwidth
Interface
Power consumption
Process node
Die size
Transistor count
Shader units / coresBetter
Memory cache
Vulkan
Upscaling
DisplayPort
HDMI
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares GT 130 and Arc 140T across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
GT 130Arc 140T
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
195 FPS
—
1080p Ultra
137 FPS
—
1440p Ultra
77 FPS
—
4K Ultra
28 FPS
—
Counter-Strike 2GT 130195 FPSArc 140T—GT 130137 FPSArc 140T—GT 13077 FPSArc 140T—GT 13028 FPSArc 140T—
Cyberpunk 2077GT 130126 FPSArc 140T—GT 130108 FPSArc 140T—GT 13055 FPSArc 140T—GT 13019 FPSArc 140T—
Forza Horizon 5GT 130158 FPSArc 140T—GT 130103 FPSArc 140T—GT 13069 FPSArc 140T—GT 13041 FPSArc 140T—
Hogwarts LegacyGT 130103 FPSArc 140T—GT 13086 FPSArc 140T—GT 13050 FPSArc 140T—GT 13019 FPSArc 140T—
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100396753%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100326973%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100326771%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100130200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001000200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100276785%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100286782%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100326771%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100246795%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100316773%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.012.2
VulkanNot supportedNot publicly specified
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedIntel XeSS
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1OpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaXe-LPG
Process node55 nmNot publicly specified
Release date2009Q1'25
Device classDesktopMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count314 millionNot publicly specified
Die size121 mm²Not publicly specified
Shader units / cores32Better8 Xe cores
Base clock500 MHzNot publicly specified
Boost clock500 MHzBetterUp to 2.35 GHz (depends on host processor)
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16Integrated into processor package
LengthVaries by boardNot applicable (integrated GPU)
ThicknessMXM ModuleNot applicable (integrated GPU)
Recommended PSUVaries by boardSystem dependent
Power connector6 pinNot applicable (integrated GPU)
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.1 FRL (OEM dependent)
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 2.1 UHBR20 (OEM dependent)
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitorsVaries by board4 (platform capability)
Max resolutionVaries by board7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (DisplayPort)
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM512 MB DDR2Shared system memory; OEM configurable
Memory typeDDR2Shared DDR5 / LPDDR5X
Memory bus192 bitDepends on system memory configuration
TFLOPS0.096Not publicly specified
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 16
- Specifications
- 21 / 68
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (2)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: GT 130 or Arc 140T?+
GT 130 has the higher overall gaming score, while GT 130 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GT 130 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
GT 130 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
GT 130 offers more overall performance, while GT 130 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GT 130 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
GT 130 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
GT 130 leads in combined 1440p performance. GT 130 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
GT 130 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GT 130 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
GT 130 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to GT 130 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.