Arc A530M vs Radeon 780M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 780M and Arc A530M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Arc A530M outperforms 780M by a small 8% 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 | 334 | 312 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 82.49 | 20.59 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Hawx Point | DG2-256 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 December 2023 (1 year 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 | 768 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2700 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 25,390 million | 11,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 129.6 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.294 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 48 | 96 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | 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 x8 | 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 | 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 | + | - |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 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:
| Full HD | 35
+0%
| 35−40
+0%
|
| 1440p | 22
+4.8%
| 21−24
−4.8%
|
| 4K | 13
−7.7%
| 14−16
+7.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 39
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119
+13.3%
|
100−110
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 30
−30%
|
35−40
+30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−6.9%
|
75−80
+6.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82
−28%
|
100−110
+28%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
−25.8%
|
35−40
+25.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
−35.6%
|
60−65
+35.6%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−6.5%
|
95−100
+6.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−8.6%
|
75−80
+8.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65
+10.2%
|
55−60
−10.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−9.4%
|
70−75
+9.4%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−5.3%
|
140−150
+5.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 25
−56%
|
35−40
+56%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−6.9%
|
75−80
+6.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39
−169%
|
100−110
+169%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−4.6%
|
220−230
+4.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
−62.5%
|
35−40
+62.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−7.8%
|
110−120
+7.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
−48.8%
|
60−65
+48.8%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−6.5%
|
95−100
+6.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−8.6%
|
75−80
+8.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+1.7%
|
55−60
−1.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
−53.3%
|
65−70
+53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
−34.5%
|
35−40
+34.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−9.4%
|
70−75
+9.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
−10.9%
|
50−55
+10.9%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−5.3%
|
140−150
+5.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 25
−56%
|
35−40
+56%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−6.9%
|
75−80
+6.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
−69.6%
|
35−40
+69.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−7.8%
|
110−120
+7.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
−56.4%
|
60−65
+56.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−8.6%
|
75−80
+8.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−9.4%
|
70−75
+9.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
−75.9%
|
50−55
+75.9%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−5.3%
|
140−150
+5.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
−6.5%
|
95−100
+6.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
−40.7%
|
35−40
+40.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−7.2%
|
130−140
+7.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
−72.2%
|
30−35
+72.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−3%
|
170−180
+3%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−4.8%
|
170−180
+4.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−8.3%
|
50−55
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
−55.6%
|
40−45
+55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.5%
|
45−50
+9.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
−50%
|
30−33
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
−7.7%
|
40−45
+7.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21
−57.1%
|
30−35
+57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
−80%
|
27−30
+80%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−9.5%
|
100−110
+9.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 8
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
This is how Radeon 780M and Arc A530M compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
- Radeon 780M is 5% faster in 1440p
- Arc A530M is 8% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 780M is 13% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A530M is 169% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- Arc A530M is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.52 | 18.97 |
| Recency | 6 December 2023 | 1 August 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Radeon 780M has an age advantage of 4 months, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.
Arc A530M, on the other hand, has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon 780M and Arc A530M.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
