Arc A530M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 3650 and Arc A530M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI Mobility HD 3650
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 30 Watt
0.31

Arc A530M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 3650 by a whopping 5106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1301307
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.8219.77
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameM86DG2-256
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2008 (17 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 cores1201536
Core clock speed500 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1300 MHz
Number of transistors378 million11,500 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate4.000124.8
Floating-point processing power0.12 TFLOPS3.994 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs896
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth22.4 GB/s224.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX10.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3600%
35−40
+3600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−2200%
45−50
+2200%
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 27−30
−400%
130−140
+400%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−2200%
45−50
+2200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
−1471%
220−230
+1471%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3600%
35−40
+3600%
Dota 2 10−11
−4900%
500−550
+4900%
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 27−30
−400%
130−140
+400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3600%
35−40
+3600%
Dota 2 10−11
−4900%
500−550
+4900%
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 27−30
−400%
130−140
+400%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−5400%
160−170
+5400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 16−18
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−4300%
40−45
+4300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 27−30

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 40−45

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−113%
30−35
+113%
Valorant 2−3
−4850%
95−100
+4850%

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
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+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%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
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%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+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 5400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A530M is ahead in 26 tests (46%)
  • there's a draw in 31 test (54%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 16.14
Recency 7 January 2008 1 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 65 Watt

ATI Mobility HD 3650 has 116.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A530M, on the other hand, has a 5106.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 816.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A530M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 3650 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650
Mobility Radeon HD 3650
Intel Arc A530M
Arc A530M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 39 votes

Rate Mobility Radeon HD 3650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 204 votes

Rate Arc A530M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Mobility Radeon HD 3650 or Arc A530M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.