GPU Comparison

# Intel Arc A530M vs AMD Radeon Pro 575

The Intel Arc A530M and AMD Radeon Pro 575 represent two very different generations of mobile graphics, separated by roughly six years of architectural evolution. The data shows the Arc A530M holds a decisive lead in the shared benchmark suite, with an average benchmark score of 46,614 compared to the Radeon Pro 575's 39,555. This 17.8% gap in overall performance places the Intel part in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 82nd percentile. The Arc A530M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (0% delta), AMD Radeon RX 6550M (-0.2% delta), and NVIDIA RTX A2000 (1.2% delta), all within a narrow band. The Radeon Pro 575's closest competitors are the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (0% delta), AMD Radeon Pro 575X (1.1% delta), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (-1.3% delta), showing it remains competitive within its own performance class despite its age.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735 against the Radeon Pro 575's 34,596, a 43.8% advantage. This is a substantial margin that reflects both the newer architecture and the higher memory bandwidth. The Arc A530M's 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, delivered over a 128-bit GDDR6 interface, edges out the Radeon Pro 575's 217.0 GB/s, which uses a wider 256-bit bus with slower GDDR5 memory. The OpenCL result also highlights the compute advantage: the Arc A530M delivers 3.994 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while the Radeon Pro 575 offers 4.489 TFLOPS FP32. Despite the Radeon Pro 575 having higher raw FP32 throughput, the Arc A530M wins by a wide margin in OpenCL, indicating that architectural efficiency and driver optimization outweigh the theoretical compute peak.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably. The Arc A530M scores 43,492 versus the Radeon Pro 575's 37,878, a 14.8% lead. This smaller gap suggests that the Radeon Pro 575's GCN 4.0 architecture, with its 2048 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, remains reasonably competitive in Vulkan workloads. The Radeon Pro 575 also has a texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s, which is actually higher than the Arc A530M's 124.8 GTexel/s. However, the Arc A530M's pixel rate of 62.40 GPixel/s versus the Radeon Pro 575's 35.07 GPixel/s shows a significant advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The Arc A530M also supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 575 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part also has 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GCN 4.0 architecture.

The Radeon Pro 575 has an additional benchmark result in Geekbench Metal, scoring 46,192. This is notable because the Arc A530M has no Metal benchmark listed, and the Radeon Pro 575's Metal score actually exceeds its Vulkan and OpenCL results. This suggests that the Radeon Pro 575, designed for Mac systems, has strong Metal optimization. However, in the benchmarks where both parts are tested, the Arc A530M wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The Intel Arc A530M is significantly faster, scoring 49,735 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Radeon Pro 575's 34,596. This represents a 43.8% performance advantage for the Intel part.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The Arc A530M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 575 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 217.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the Arc A530M's newer memory technology gives it slightly higher bandwidth.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 575 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 575 is based on GCN 4.0 architecture and has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc A530M, based on Xe-HPG architecture, includes 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: What API level does each GPU support?

A: The Arc A530M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part supports a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank in the overall performance percentile?

A: The Arc A530M ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 575 ranks in the 82nd percentile. Both are above average, but the Intel part sits higher in the distribution.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Arc A530M has a transistor density of 42.8 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to the Radeon Pro 575's 24.6 million. This reflects the 6 nm process node used for the Intel part versus the 14 nm node used for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The Intel Arc A530M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It uses the DG2-256 chip, which contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 42.8 million per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the modern fabrication process. The Radeon Pro 575, in contrast, uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This older chip contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The Intel part packs roughly twice the transistor count into a slightly larger die.

The Xe-HPG architecture brings several modern features that GCN 4.0 lacks. The Arc A530M includes 12 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing in supported applications. The Radeon Pro 575 has no equivalent hardware. The Arc A530M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like variable rate shading and mesh shaders, while the Radeon Pro 575 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). The Intel part further supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.3. These API differences mean the Arc A530M can take advantage of newer rendering techniques and more efficient driver paths in modern games and applications.

The compute configurations also differ meaningfully. The Arc A530M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The Radeon Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. This gives the AMD part more raw shader throughput on paper, but the Intel part's newer architecture and higher pixel rate (62.40 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s) compensate. The Radeon Pro 575 does have a higher texture rate at 140.3 GTexel/s versus the Arc A530M's 124.8 GTexel/s. FP16 performance also differs: the Arc A530M delivers 7.987 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Radeon Pro 575 delivers 4.489 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the Intel part has a substantial advantage in half-precision workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The Arc A530M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while the Radeon Pro 575 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. Transistor count is 11,500 million for the Intel part versus 5,700 million for the AMD part. Die size is 269 mm² versus 232 mm². Transistor density is 42.8 million per square millimeter versus 24.6 million. The Arc A530M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 575 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Intel part versus 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) for the AMD part.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 575 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has half the bus width but achieves higher bandwidth due to faster memory. Shading units favor the AMD part (2,048 versus 1,536), as do TMUs (128 versus 96). The Arc A530M has more ROPs (48 versus 32) and adds 12 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 62.40 GPixel/s for Intel versus 35.07 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s for Intel versus 140.3 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 performance is 3.994 TFLOPS for Intel versus 4.489 TFLOPS for AMD. FP16 performance is 7.987 TFLOPS for Intel versus 4.489 TFLOPS for AMD.

Power and form factor also differ substantially. The Arc A530M has a TDP of 65 W and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width. The Radeon Pro 575 has a TDP of 150 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Intel part versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the AMD part. The Arc A530M was released in July 2023 and is still in active production, while the Radeon Pro 575 was released in June 2017 and is end-of-life. Both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A530M wins decisively in compute benchmarks. Its 43.8% lead in OpenCL and 14.8% lead in Vulkan demonstrate that the newer Xe-HPG architecture offers superior performance in general-purpose compute and modern graphics APIs. The Arc A530M is also the clear choice for applications that can leverage ray tracing, with 12 dedicated RT cores that the Radeon Pro 575 simply does not have. The Intel part's 8 GB of memory is double the Radeon Pro 575's 4 GB, which matters for larger textures and datasets. The Arc A530M's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 makes it more future-proof for newer games and applications that use advanced rendering features. Its 65 W TDP also makes it more suitable for thinner, lighter laptops compared to the 150 W Radeon Pro 575.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 retains advantages in specific areas. Its higher FP32 throughput of 4.489 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS gives it an edge in pure single-precision compute workloads that are not bottlenecked by memory or driver efficiency. The Radeon Pro 575 also has a higher texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s, which benefits texture-heavy workloads. Its 256-bit memory bus, even with slower GDDR5, provides good memory parallelism. The Radeon Pro 575's Metal benchmark score of 46,192 indicates strong performance in Apple's Metal API, making it relevant for macOS environments. The GPU's MXM module form factor means it was designed for upgradeable mobile workstations, which may appeal to users with compatible systems. Its 2,048 shading units give it raw shader count advantage, and the 14 nm process, while old, is mature and well-understood.

For different workloads, the choice is clear. Applications that leverage modern APIs, ray tracing, or require more than 4 GB of memory will favor the Arc A530M. Legacy applications optimized for GCN architecture or Metal-based macOS software may still perform adequately on the Radeon Pro 575, though its end-of-life status and lack of feature updates limit its long-term viability. The Arc A530M's active production status ensures ongoing driver support, while the Radeon Pro 575 has reached the end of its lifecycle. In the head-to-head benchmarks where both are tested, the Intel part wins both, making it the stronger overall performer despite the AMD part's advantages in specific specification categories.