Arc A530M vs ION 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared ION 2 and Arc A530M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A530M outperforms ION 2 by a whopping 5573% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1319 | 307 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.13 | 19.74 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | DG2-256 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (16 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 | 16 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 11,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03424 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.2 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2300%
|
70−75
+2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−419%
|
130−140
+419%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1592%
|
220−230
+1592%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−5400%
|
550−600
+5400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2300%
|
70−75
+2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−419%
|
130−140
+419%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−5400%
|
550−600
+5400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2300%
|
70−75
+2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−419%
|
130−140
+419%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−8250%
|
160−170
+8250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 40−45 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4800%
|
95−100
+4800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A530M is 8250% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A530M is ahead in 31 test (51%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 18.72 |
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 1 August 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 65 Watt |
ION 2 has 225% lower power consumption.
Arc A530M, on the other hand, has a 5572.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A530M is our recommended choice as it beats the ION 2 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.
