Intel
Intel Arc 140T vs Radeon R9 285
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
R9 285
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc 140T and R9 285 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Arc 140T outperforms R9 285 by ~97% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+97%
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
Higher catalog score: Intel Arc 140T (~24%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Arc 140T
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · Intel XeSS
Reasons to consider R9 285
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
Intel
AMDPerformance
6734
Graphics card ranking
Positions 117–122of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon R9 285
108 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
67Better
34
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
55Better
31
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
52Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
50
60Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
57Better
46
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
Architecture
Shader units / coresBetter
Boost clockBetter
Release date
VRAM
Memory type
Memory bus
Interface
Power consumption
Power connector
Length
Thickness
Recommended PSU
HDMI
DisplayPort
USB Type-C
Max monitors
Max resolution
DirectX
OpenGL
Compute API
Upscaling
TFLOPS
Vulkan
Process node
Transistor count
Die size
Base clock
Memory bandwidth
Memory frequency
Memory cache
Clock speed
Power consumption—
Launch price—
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Arc 140T and R9 285 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.
Arc 140TR9 285
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
—
175 FPS
1080p Ultra
—
120 FPS
1440p Ultra
—
65 FPS
4K Ultra
—
24 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Arc 140T—R9 285175 FPSArc 140T—R9 285120 FPSArc 140T—R9 28565 FPSArc 140T—R9 28524 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Arc 140T—R9 285113 FPSArc 140T—R9 28595 FPSArc 140T—R9 28547 FPSArc 140T—R9 28516 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Arc 140T—R9 285142 FPSArc 140T—R9 28590 FPSArc 140T—R9 28558 FPSArc 140T—R9 28535 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyArc 140T—R9 28592 FPSArc 140T—R9 28575 FPSArc 140T—R9 28542 FPSArc 140T—R9 28516 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100673465%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100693760%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100674050%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100056200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 100060200%
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 / 100674441%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100674344%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100674050%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100674637%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100674050%
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
DirectX12.212.0
VulkanNot publicly specified1.2
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingIntel XeSSNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 2.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureXe-LPGGCN 3.0
Process nodeNot publicly specified28 nm
Release dateQ1'252014
Device classMobileDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified5000 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified366 mm²
Shader units / cores8 Xe cores1792Better
Base clockNot publicly specified918 MHz
Boost clockUp to 2.35 GHz (depends on host processor)918 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfaceIntegrated into processor packagePCIe 3x16
LengthNot applicable (integrated GPU)221 mm
ThicknessNot applicable (integrated GPU)Dual-slot
Recommended PSUSystem dependent450 W
Power connectorNot applicable (integrated GPU)6+6 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.1 FRL (OEM dependent)HDMI 1.4a
DisplayPortDisplayPort 2.1 UHBR20 (OEM dependent)DisplayPort 1.2
USB Type-COEM dependentNo
Max monitors4 (platform capability)4
Max resolution7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz (DisplayPort)4096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAMShared system memory; OEM configurable2 GB GDDR5
Memory typeShared DDR5 / LPDDR5XGDDR5
Memory busDepends on system memory configuration256 bit
TFLOPSNot publicly specified3.29
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 (3)
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: Arc 140T or R9 285?+
Arc 140T has the higher overall gaming score, while R9 285 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Arc 140T 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?+
Arc 140T is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Arc 140T offers more overall performance, while Arc 140T offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Arc 140T is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
R9 285 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Arc 140T leads in combined 1440p performance. Arc 140T can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Arc 140T is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
R9 285 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?+
R9 285 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 Arc 140T 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.