Arc A530M vs GeForce MX450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX450 and Arc A530M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A530M outperforms MX450 by an impressive 95% 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 | 474 | 310 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 26.62 | 19.97 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1 | DG2-256 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 1 August 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 | 896 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1575 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 11,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP) | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.03 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| 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
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:
| Full HD | 28
−78.6%
| 50−55
+78.6%
|
| 1440p | 16
−87.5%
| 30−35
+87.5%
|
| 4K | 25
−80%
| 45−50
+80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 88
−15.9%
|
100−110
+15.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
−18.8%
|
35−40
+18.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 49
−53.1%
|
75−80
+53.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
−52.2%
|
100−110
+52.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 22
−72.7%
|
35−40
+72.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
−76.5%
|
60−65
+76.5%
|
| Fortnite | 61
−57.4%
|
95−100
+57.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−82.5%
|
70−75
+82.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
−67.6%
|
55−60
+67.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−53.9%
|
130−140
+53.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
−264%
|
100−110
+264%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−58.6%
|
220−230
+58.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
−93.2%
|
170−180
+93.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 29
−107%
|
60−65
+107%
|
| Fortnite | 39
−146%
|
95−100
+146%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−82.5%
|
70−75
+82.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 26
−119%
|
55−60
+119%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38
−76.3%
|
65−70
+76.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
−280%
|
35−40
+280%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
−48.5%
|
45−50
+48.5%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−53.9%
|
130−140
+53.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30
−150%
|
75−80
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
−375%
|
35−40
+375%
|
| Dota 2 | 81
−85.2%
|
150−160
+85.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
−122%
|
60−65
+122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−82.5%
|
70−75
+82.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
−145%
|
45−50
+145%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−53.9%
|
130−140
+53.9%
|
| Fortnite | 25
−284%
|
95−100
+284%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−131%
|
35−40
+131%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−85.7%
|
130−140
+85.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−130%
|
21−24
+130%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−276%
|
160−170
+276%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−67%
|
170−180
+67%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−132%
|
50−55
+132%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
−95%
|
35−40
+95%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−105%
|
45−50
+105%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−108%
|
27−30
+108%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−116%
|
40−45
+116%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−60%
|
30−35
+60%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−150%
|
24−27
+150%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−108%
|
100−105
+108%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 32
−87.5%
|
60−65
+87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−90%
|
18−20
+90%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−107%
|
30−35
+107%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
This is how GeForce MX450 and Arc A530M compete in popular games:
- Arc A530M is 79% faster in 1080p
- Arc A530M is 88% faster in 1440p
- Arc A530M is 80% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A530M is 650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Arc A530M surpassed GeForce MX450 in all 63 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.40 | 18.33 |
| Recency | 1 August 2020 | 1 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 65 Watt |
GeForce MX450 has 160% lower power consumption.
Arc A530M, on the other hand, has a 95% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A530M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX450 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
