Arc Pro A30M vs Radeon HD 6730M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6730M with Arc Pro A30M, including specs and performance data.
Pro A30M outperforms HD 6730M by a whopping 1075% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1099 | 406 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.76 | 22.74 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 8 August 2022 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 128.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 1.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
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:
| 900p | 17
−1018%
| 190−200
+1018%
|
| Full HD | 23
−1074%
| 270−280
+1074%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1167%
|
35−40
+1167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1167%
|
35−40
+1167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6300%
|
60−65
+6300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2000%
|
80−85
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−786%
|
60−65
+786%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−4600%
|
45−50
+4600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1167%
|
35−40
+1167%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6300%
|
60−65
+6300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−583%
|
190−200
+583%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1025%
|
180−190
+1025%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2000%
|
80−85
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−786%
|
60−65
+786%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−4600%
|
45−50
+4600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6300%
|
60−65
+6300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1025%
|
180−190
+1025%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−786%
|
60−65
+786%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1043%
|
400−450
+1043%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−2000%
|
80−85
+2000%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−1275%
|
110−120
+1275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−1613%
|
130−140
+1613%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1100%
|
35−40
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−80%
|
27−30
+80%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−813%
|
70−75
+813%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how HD 6730M and Arc Pro A30M compete in popular games:
- Arc Pro A30M is 1018% faster in 900p
- Arc Pro A30M is 1074% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc Pro A30M is 6300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc Pro A30M performs better in 41 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.25 | 14.69 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 8 August 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 6730M has 43% lower power consumption.
Arc Pro A30M, on the other hand, has a 1075% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 567% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc Pro A30M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6730M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6730M is a notebook graphics card while Arc Pro A30M 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.
