Arc A530M vs GeForce GTX 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680 with Arc A530M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A530M outperforms GTX 680 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 370 | 308 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.08 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.11 | 19.75 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | DG2-256 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 August 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1536 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1006 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1058 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 11,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 135.4 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.25 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 96 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 254 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 45
−22.2%
| 55−60
+22.2%
|
| Full HD | 75
−26.7%
| 95−100
+26.7%
|
| 4K | 25
−20%
| 30−35
+20%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.65 | no data |
| 4K | 19.96 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−35.3%
|
45−50
+35.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−35.3%
|
45−50
+35.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−25.4%
|
70−75
+25.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−21.8%
|
95−100
+21.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−26.3%
|
70−75
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−32.4%
|
45−50
+32.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−34.7%
|
65−70
+34.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−17.4%
|
130−140
+17.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−35.3%
|
45−50
+35.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−25.4%
|
70−75
+25.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 224
+1.8%
|
220−230
−1.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−25%
|
110−120
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−21.8%
|
95−100
+21.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−26.3%
|
70−75
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−32.4%
|
45−50
+32.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
−17.9%
|
65−70
+17.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−34.7%
|
65−70
+34.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
−16.7%
|
45−50
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−17.4%
|
130−140
+17.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−25.4%
|
70−75
+25.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
−25%
|
110−120
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−26.3%
|
70−75
+26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−32.4%
|
45−50
+32.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−34.7%
|
65−70
+34.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−123%
|
45−50
+123%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−17.4%
|
130−140
+17.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
−21.8%
|
95−100
+21.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−25.5%
|
120−130
+25.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−29.4%
|
21−24
+29.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−36.1%
|
160−170
+36.1%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−18.9%
|
170−180
+18.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−30%
|
35−40
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−33.3%
|
27−30
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
−52.4%
|
30−35
+52.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−56.3%
|
24−27
+56.3%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−32.4%
|
95−100
+32.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−36.8%
|
24−27
+36.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−22.4%
|
60−65
+22.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−29.2%
|
30−35
+29.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how GTX 680 and Arc A530M compete in popular games:
- Arc A530M is 22% faster in 900p
- Arc A530M is 27% faster in 1080p
- Arc A530M is 20% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680 is 2% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A530M is 123% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 680 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Arc A530M is ahead in 62 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.54 | 18.72 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 1 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 65 Watt |
Arc A530M has a 28.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Arc A530M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 is a desktop card while Arc A530M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
