Arc A530M vs UHD Graphics 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 630 with Arc A530M, including specs and performance data.
Arc A530M outperforms UHD Graphics 630 by a whopping 497% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 771 | 310 |
| Place by popularity | 35 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.15 | 19.49 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Comet Lake GT2 | DG2-256 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2017 (7 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 cores | 184 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 11,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.45 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4232 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 48 |
| TMUs | 23 | 96 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 x1 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 18
−456%
| 100−110
+456%
|
| 1440p | 10
−450%
| 55−60
+450%
|
| 4K | 7
−471%
| 40−45
+471%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−620%
|
35−40
+620%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−630%
|
70−75
+630%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
−883%
|
55−60
+883%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−527%
|
90−95
+527%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−407%
|
70−75
+407%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−860%
|
45−50
+860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−400%
|
65−70
+400%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−191%
|
130−140
+191%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−630%
|
70−75
+630%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 29
−652%
|
210−220
+652%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
−471%
|
120−130
+471%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−883%
|
55−60
+883%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−527%
|
90−95
+527%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−407%
|
70−75
+407%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−860%
|
45−50
+860%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−829%
|
65−70
+829%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−1133%
|
35−40
+1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−400%
|
65−70
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−191%
|
130−140
+191%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−630%
|
70−75
+630%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−883%
|
55−60
+883%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−407%
|
70−75
+407%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−860%
|
45−50
+860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−400%
|
65−70
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−191%
|
130−140
+191%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−527%
|
90−95
+527%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−505%
|
120−130
+505%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−655%
|
160−170
+655%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−504%
|
160−170
+504%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−400%
|
20−22
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−680%
|
35−40
+680%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−514%
|
40−45
+514%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−460%
|
27−30
+460%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−680%
|
35−40
+680%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−93.8%
|
30−35
+93.8%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−547%
|
95−100
+547%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 630 and Arc A530M compete in popular games:
- Arc A530M is 456% faster in 1080p
- Arc A530M is 450% faster in 1440p
- Arc A530M is 471% faster in 4K
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 2100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc A530M is ahead in 58 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.09 | 18.45 |
| Recency | 1 October 2017 | 1 August 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
UHD Graphics 630 has 333.3% lower power consumption.
Arc A530M, on the other hand, has a 497.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A530M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop 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.
