Arc A530M vs Radeon RX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 590 with Arc A530M, including specs and performance data.
590 outperforms A530M by a moderate 17% 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 | 277 | 312 |
| Place by popularity | 82 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.34 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.72 | 22.37 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 30 | DG2-256 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 November 2018 (6 years ago) | 1 August 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 2304 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1469 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 11,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.5 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.119 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 144 | 96 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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 | 102
+20%
| 85−90
−20%
|
| 1440p | 60
+20%
| 50−55
−20%
|
| 4K | 38
+26.7%
| 30−35
−26.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.74 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.65 | no data |
| 4K | 7.34 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+16.2%
|
110−120
−16.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+19.5%
|
40−45
−19.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 133
+64.2%
|
80−85
−64.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+16.2%
|
110−120
−16.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+19.5%
|
40−45
−19.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85
+32.8%
|
60−65
−32.8%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+36.3%
|
100−110
−36.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120
+51.9%
|
75−80
−51.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+18%
|
60−65
−18%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+62.2%
|
70−75
−62.2%
|
| Valorant | 301
+108%
|
140−150
−108%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+37%
|
80−85
−37%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+16.2%
|
110−120
−16.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+7.7%
|
230−240
−7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+19.5%
|
40−45
−19.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+19%
|
100−105
−19%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+23.4%
|
60−65
−23.4%
|
| Fortnite | 138
+35.3%
|
100−110
−35.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 113
+43%
|
75−80
−43%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+18%
|
60−65
−18%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+9.7%
|
70−75
−9.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52
+23.8%
|
40−45
−23.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 108
+45.9%
|
70−75
−45.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 88
+60%
|
55−60
−60%
|
| Valorant | 287
+97.9%
|
140−150
−97.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100
+23.5%
|
80−85
−23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+19.5%
|
40−45
−19.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+19%
|
100−105
−19%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+15.6%
|
60−65
−15.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 91
+15.2%
|
75−80
−15.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 83
+12.2%
|
70−75
−12.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
| Valorant | 110
−31.8%
|
140−150
+31.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 96
−6.3%
|
100−110
+6.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+14.9%
|
140−150
−14.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+20.6%
|
30−35
−20.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1.8%
|
170−180
−1.8%
|
| Valorant | 232
+28.9%
|
180−190
−28.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+16.4%
|
55−60
−16.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+18.2%
|
40−45
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+20.8%
|
45−50
−20.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+23.3%
|
30−33
−23.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+20%
|
45−50
−20%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 113
+1.8%
|
110−120
−1.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+37.9%
|
27−30
−37.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+9.1%
|
21−24
−9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+35.3%
|
30−35
−35.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35
+75%
|
20−22
−75%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 29
+45%
|
20−22
−45%
|
This is how RX 590 and Arc A530M compete in popular games:
- RX 590 is 20% faster in 1080p
- RX 590 is 20% faster in 1440p
- RX 590 is 27% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 590 is 108% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A530M is 32% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 590 performs better in 60 tests (95%)
- Arc A530M performs better in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.12 | 18.06 |
| Recency | 15 November 2018 | 1 August 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 65 Watt |
RX 590 has a 16.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Arc A530M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 169.2% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A530M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 590 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.
