Arc A530M vs ATI Radeon IGP 340M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1536310
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data19.23
ArchitectureRage 6 (2000−2007)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameRS200DG2-256
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 October 2002 (22 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 cores21536
Core clock speed183 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed180 MHz1300 MHz
Number of transistors30 million11,500 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data65 Watt
Texture fill rate0.37124.8
Floating-point processing powerno data3.994 TFLOPS
ROPs248
TMUs296
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).

InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 4.0 x8
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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX7.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGL1.44.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

ATI IGP 340M 2
Arc A530M 6979
+348850%

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

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1420%
75−80
+1420%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1333%
40−45
+1333%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−933%
60−65
+933%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1420%
75−80
+1420%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−3025%
120−130
+3025%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1333%
40−45
+1333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1300%
55−60
+1300%
World of Tanks 8−9
−2638%
210−220
+2638%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−933%
60−65
+933%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1420%
75−80
+1420%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−3025%
120−130
+3025%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 0−1 110−120

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1075%
45−50
+1075%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−733%
24−27
+733%
Valorant 4−5
−1050%
45−50
+1050%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
−107%
30−35
+107%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−107%
30−35
+107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−107%
30−35
+107%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Dota 2 14−16 no data
Valorant 0−1 21−24

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+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 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A530M is 3025% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A530M is ahead in 27 tests (46%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (54%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 October 2002 1 August 2023
Chip lithography 180 nm 6 nm

Arc A530M has an age advantage of 20 years, and a 2900% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon IGP 340M and Arc A530M. We've got no test results to judge.


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.


ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M
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.


5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 201 vote

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.