Arc A530M vs Radeon R9 270

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 with Arc A530M, including specs and performance data.

R9 270
2013, $179
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.25

A530M outperforms R9 270 by an impressive 86% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking476317
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.42no data
Power efficiency5.2722.56
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameCuracaoDG2-256
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (12 years ago)1 August 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores12801536
Core clock speedno data900 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1300 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million11,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate74.00124.8
Floating-point processing power2.368 TFLOPS3.994 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs8096
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data12
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB8 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno 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 amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s224.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R9 270 10.25
Arc A530M 19.02
+85.6%

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.

R9 270 4306
Samples: 11
Arc A530M 7993
+85.6%
Samples: 38

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

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.25 19.02
Recency 13 November 2013 1 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 65 Watt

Arc A530M has a 85.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 130.8% lower power consumption.

The Arc A530M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 270 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270 is a desktop graphics card while Arc A530M is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 270
Radeon R9 270
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.


3.9 660 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 222 votes

Rate Arc A530M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 270 or Arc A530M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.