AMD Radeon 820M vs Intel Arc A530M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon 820M and Intel Arc A530M. The database lists zero comparative wins for either part in this pairing. However, the Intel Arc A530M carries its own benchmark scores from two standard compute tests, while the AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark entries at all.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735 points. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 43,492 points. Its average benchmark score across these tests is 46,614 points. The AMD Radeon 820M has an average benchmark score of 0 in the database, meaning no comparable performance data is available for a direct numerical comparison.

The Intel Arc A530M holds the 85th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon 820M sits at the 50th percentile, though this figure is based on its placement among integrated graphics parts rather than measured results. Looking at the Arc A530M's nearest rivals, it essentially matches the AMD Radeon RX 5600M with a delta of 0 percent, trails the Radeon RX 6550M by 0.2 percent, and leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.2 percent and the RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.4 percent. These deltas are small, placing the Arc A530M in a tight performance cluster with those discrete mobile GPUs.

The absence of benchmark data for the Radeon 820M means the database cannot confirm any performance relationship between these two parts. What the data does show is that the Arc A530M is a measured performer with a clear standing among established discrete GPUs, while the Radeon 820M remains an unquantified entry in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and use fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon 820M is built on RDNA 3.5, part of the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc A530M uses the Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist generation, specifically the Arc 5 Mobile tier, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC.

Process node differences are notable. The 4 nm node of the AMD part is smaller than the 6 nm node used by Intel. The Intel chip, designated DG2-256, contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². The AMD Radeon 820M's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, so no direct density comparison is possible.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD part has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,800 MHz. The Intel part runs a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1,300 MHz. The AMD part's boost clock is more than double its base, while the Intel part's boost is a more modest increase. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD part uses system-shared memory with no dedicated clock, while the Intel part uses a 1,750 MHz memory clock with 14 Gbps effective data rate.

Memory configurations are completely different. The AMD Radeon 820M has system-shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all system dependent. The Intel Arc A530M has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory arrangement gives the Intel part a fixed memory resource that does not compete with the system for capacity.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward Intel. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. The Intel part has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. These are 12 times, 12 times, and 12 times the AMD counts respectively. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: the AMD part has 2, while the Intel part has 12.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these resource differences. The AMD Radeon 820M delivers 11.20 GPixel/s and 22.40 GTexel/s. The Intel Arc A530M delivers 62.40 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s. Floating-point throughput shows a similar gap. The AMD part is rated at 716.8 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, with a 1:1 ratio. The Intel part delivers 3.994 TFLOPS in FP32 and 7.987 TFLOPS in FP16, using a 2:1 ratio where FP16 throughput doubles FP32.

Power consumption differs by a wide margin. The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Arc A530M has a TDP of 65 W. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, and both are classified as IGP slot width with display outputs dependent on the portable device. Both support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release timing also differs. The AMD part was released on 2025-02-28. The Intel part was released on 2023-07-31. Both are listed as Active in production status. The AMD part's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the Intel part has no predecessor recorded.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between an unmeasured integrated GPU and a measured discrete-class mobile GPU. The Intel Arc A530M has concrete benchmark scores, a 85th percentile standing, and performance that places it alongside discrete mobile GPUs like the Radeon RX 5600M and RX 6550M. The AMD Radeon 820M has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, which is a default placement rather than a measured result.

For users who need a GPU with verified compute performance, the database only supports the Intel Arc A530M. Its Geekbench scores of 49,735 in OpenCL and 43,492 in Vulkan, with an average of 46,614, represent measurable capabilities. The nearest rival data confirms it competes evenly with the Radeon RX 5600M and RX 6550M, both established discrete mobile GPUs.

For users who require minimal power draw, the AMD Radeon 820M's 15 W TDP is far below the Intel part's 65 W. This is a significant architectural difference, but without benchmark data, the database cannot state what performance the AMD part delivers at that power level. The 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs suggest a low-end integrated solution, but performance conclusions cannot be drawn from specifications alone.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the Intel Arc A530M is the only part in this comparison with measured performance, and that performance is competitive with mid-range discrete mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon 820M is a newer, lower-power part with no recorded performance data, so no performance-based recommendation is possible from the database.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has an average benchmark score of 46,614 points. The AMD Radeon 820M has an average benchmark score of 0, indicating no recorded benchmark data.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a boost clock of 2,800 MHz. The Intel Arc A530M has a boost clock of 1,300 MHz.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon 820M uses system-shared memory, so its memory size, type, and bandwidth are system dependent.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Arc A530M has a TDP of 65 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has 1,536 shading units. The AMD Radeon 820M has 128 shading units.

Q: What are the release dates for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon 820M was released on 2025-02-28. The Intel Arc A530M was released on 2023-07-31.

Where Each One Wins

Based on recorded data, the Intel Arc A530M wins in every measurable performance category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 49,735 and Vulkan score of 43,492 are the only benchmark results in the database for this pairing. Its average score of 46,614 places it at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, and it matches or slightly leads its nearest discrete rivals: 0 percent delta versus the Radeon RX 5600M, 0.2 percent ahead of the Radeon RX 6550M, 1.2 percent ahead of the RTX A2000, and 1.4 percent ahead of the RTX 5880 Ada Generation.

The AMD Radeon 820M wins in power efficiency based on the specification data. Its 15 W TDP is substantially lower than the Intel part's 65 W. It also uses a smaller 4 nm process compared to the 6 nm process of the Intel part, and its boost clock of 2,800 MHz is higher than the Intel part's 1,300 MHz, though this does not translate into measured performance advantages in the database.

In compute resources, the Intel part wins across the board. Its 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs dwarf the AMD part's 128, 8, and 4 respectively. The Intel part's 12 ray tracing cores compare to 2 on the AMD part. Pixel rate favors Intel at 62.40 GPixel/s versus 11.20 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors Intel at 124.8 GTexel/s versus 22.40 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput favors Intel at 3.994 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS. FP16 throughput favors Intel at 7.987 TFLOPS versus 716.8 GFLOPS.

The AMD part wins in architectural efficiency metrics that do not involve performance measurements. Its 4 nm process is smaller than Intel's 6 nm process. Its base clock of 400 MHz is lower than Intel's 900 MHz, but its boost clock is higher. The AMD part has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the Intel part has a 2:1 ratio, meaning Intel's FP16 throughput is double its FP32 throughput.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The manufacturer and architecture are different: AMD with RDNA 3.5 versus Intel with Xe-HPG. The chip identifiers differ: Krackan Point 2 for AMD versus DG2-256 for Intel. The generations differ: Navi III IGP for Strix Point Mobile for AMD versus Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) for Intel.

Process technology differs: 4 nm for AMD versus 6 nm for Intel, both at TSMC. The Intel part has known transistor count and die size: 11,500 million transistors on 269 mm² with 42.8M per mm² density. The AMD part has unknown transistor count and die size.

Clock specifications differ. AMD: 400 MHz base, 2,800 MHz boost, system-shared memory clock. Intel: 900 MHz base, 1,300 MHz boost, 1,750 MHz memory clock with 14 Gbps effective. Memory configurations differ completely: system-shared for AMD versus 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth for Intel.

Compute unit counts differ by an order of magnitude. Shading units: 128 for AMD versus 1,536 for Intel. TMUs: 8 versus 96. ROPs: 4 versus 48. Ray tracing cores: 2 versus 12. Pixel rate: 11.20 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 22.40 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 716.8 GFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS. FP16: 716.8 GFLOPS with 1:1 ratio versus 7.987 TFLOPS with 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications differ. TDP: 15 W for AMD versus 65 W for Intel. Both use IGP slot width. The AMD part has no power connectors, while the Intel part's power connectors are not listed. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8. Both have display outputs dependent on the portable device. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates differ: 2025-02-28 for AMD versus 2023-07-31 for Intel. The AMD part has a predecessor listed as Navi II IGP; the Intel part has no predecessor. Neither part has a successor listed. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database. The production status for both is Active.