Radeon 530 vs RX Vega M GL
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL and Radeon 530, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega M GL outperforms 530 by a whopping 276% 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 | 488 | 856 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.83 | 3.75 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | Weston |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 18 April 2017 (8 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 | 1280 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.588 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 24 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | HBM2 | DDR3/GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
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 | 60−65
+275%
| 16
−275%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+90%
|
30
−90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+297%
|
36
−297%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+127%
|
30
−127%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+338%
|
13
−338%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+192%
|
12
−192%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+118%
|
11
−118%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+143%
|
28
−143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+300%
|
6
−300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| God of War | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| God of War | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega M GL and Radeon 530 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL is 275% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega M GL is 467% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL is ahead in 16 tests (28%)
- there's a draw in 41 tests (72%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.24 | 2.46 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 18 April 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
RX Vega M GL has a 275.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 530, on the other hand, has 30% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 530 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
