Arc A530M vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with Arc A530M, including specs and performance data.
A530M outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 580% 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 | 830 | 317 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 22.57 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | DG2-256 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 August 2023 (2 years 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 | 512 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 11,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 96 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 8 MB |
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 | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 18
−567%
| 120−130
+567%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1133%
|
110−120
+1133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−710%
|
80−85
+710%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1133%
|
110−120
+1133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−680%
|
75−80
+680%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−700%
|
60−65
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−580%
|
100−110
+580%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−464%
|
75−80
+464%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−469%
|
70−75
+469%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−217%
|
140−150
+217%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−710%
|
80−85
+710%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1133%
|
110−120
+1133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−331%
|
230−240
+331%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
−555%
|
190−200
+555%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−680%
|
75−80
+680%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−700%
|
60−65
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−580%
|
100−110
+580%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−464%
|
75−80
+464%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−700%
|
70−75
+700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−469%
|
70−75
+469%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−217%
|
140−150
+217%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−710%
|
80−85
+710%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Dota 2 | 26
−554%
|
170−180
+554%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−680%
|
75−80
+680%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−700%
|
60−65
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−464%
|
75−80
+464%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−469%
|
70−75
+469%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−817%
|
55−60
+817%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−217%
|
140−150
+217%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−580%
|
100−110
+580%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−571%
|
140−150
+571%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−558%
|
170−180
+558%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−596%
|
180−190
+596%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−600%
|
40−45
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−780%
|
40−45
+780%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−140%
|
35−40
+140%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−693%
|
110−120
+693%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and Arc A530M compete in popular games:
- Arc A530M is 567% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A530M is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A530M performs better in 53 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.81 | 19.11 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 1 August 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
Arc A530M has a 580.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A530M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop graphics card while Arc A530M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
