Arc A530M vs Quadro P2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 with Arc A530M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P2000
2017
5 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.86
+6.3%

P2000 outperforms Arc A530M by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking295308
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.56no data
Power efficiency17.2418.71
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGP106DG2-256
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)1 August 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores10241536
Core clock speed1076 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz1300 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million11,500 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate94.72124.8
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS3.994 TFLOPS
ROPs4048
TMUs6496
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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length201 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount5 GB8 GB
Memory bus width160 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/s224.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA6.1-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro P2000 18.86
+6.3%
Arc A530M 17.74

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.

Quadro P2000 7268
+6.3%
Arc A530M 6836

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 HD56
+12%
50−55
−12%
1440p22
+22.2%
18−21
−22.2%
4K16
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.45no data
1440p26.59no data
4K36.56no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+12.7%
55−60
−12.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Far Cry 5 42
+20%
35−40
−20%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+7.3%
110−120
−7.3%
Hitman 3 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+1050%
8−9
−1050%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+8.3%
60−65
−8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 77
+1825%
4−5
−1825%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+214%
27−30
−214%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+12.7%
55−60
−12.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Far Cry 5 33
+10%
30−33
−10%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+7.3%
110−120
−7.3%
Hitman 3 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+1050%
8−9
−1050%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+8.3%
60−65
−8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+1450%
4−5
−1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+378%
9−10
−378%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+214%
27−30
−214%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Far Cry 5 26
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+7.3%
110−120
−7.3%
Hitman 3 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+1050%
8−9
−1050%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+1450%
4−5
−1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+178%
9−10
−178%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+214%
27−30
−214%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+9.5%
95−100
−9.5%
Hitman 3 21−24
+267%
6−7
−267%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+12%
100−105
−12%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Hitman 3 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+7.8%
90−95
−7.8%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 7
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%

This is how Quadro P2000 and Arc A530M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is 12% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P2000 is 22% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro P2000 is 14% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 1825% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed Arc A530M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.86 17.74
Recency 6 February 2017 1 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 65 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A530M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P2000 and Arc A530M.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while Arc A530M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Quadro P2000
Intel Arc A530M
Arc A530M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 638 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 195 votes

Rate Arc A530M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.