Intel Arc A530M vs Intel Arc A550M Comparison

# Intel Arc A550M vs Intel Arc A530M

The Intel Arc A550M and Intel Arc A530M are both mobile graphics solutions built on the Xe-HPG architecture from the Alchemist generation (Arc 5 Mobile), yet they occupy distinctly different performance tiers within Intel’s mobile lineup. Benchmark data shows the A550M holds a decisive lead in synthetic compute workloads, while the A530M offers a more modest but still competitive profile. Both cards share the same 8 GB GDDR6 memory configuration and 128-bit bus, but their underlying silicon differs substantially in transistor count, die size, and execution resources, which translates into measurable performance gaps across the two available Geekbench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A550M achieves an average benchmark score of 49737, which is 6.7% higher than the Intel Arc A530M’s average of 46614. This places the A550M at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, while the A530M sits at the 85th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the A550M in Vulkan workloads?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the A550M scores 49580 versus the A530M’s 43492, giving the A550M a 14% advantage. This is the largest single-test margin between the two cards.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the Intel Arc A550M and Intel Arc A530M support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no difference in their API feature sets.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The A550M has 2048 shading units, while the A530M has 1536 shading units. This represents a 33% increase in shading resources for the A550M, which directly contributes to its higher FP32 throughput.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Arc A550M boosts to 2050 MHz, whereas the Intel Arc A530M boosts to only 1300 MHz. That is a 750 MHz difference in maximum boost frequency.

Q: Are the memory subsystems identical?

A: Yes, both cards feature 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and an effective memory clock of 14 Gbps. Memory performance is a non-factor in differentiating these two GPUs.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Arc A550M is clearly the stronger performer, winning both head-to-head benchmark tests. Its average score of 49737 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, while the A530M lands within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 6550M. The A550M’s 6.7% average score advantage over the A530M is meaningful, but the margin is not overwhelming in every workload — the OpenCL test shows only a 0.3% difference, while Vulkan shows a 14% gap.

Users who prioritize compute performance across a broad range of applications should gravitate toward the A550M. Its higher shading unit count, larger die, and significantly higher boost clock give it a clear edge in raw throughput, and its 86th percentile ranking reflects its position among stronger discrete GPUs. The A530M, however, is no slouch — its OpenCL score of 49735 is nearly identical to the A550M’s 49894, suggesting that in certain compute-heavy tasks, the two deliver comparable results. The A530M also carries a slightly higher TDP of 65 W versus 60 W for the A550M, which may indicate different thermal tuning priorities.

For a system where Vulkan performance is critical, the A550M is the obvious choice. For workloads that are more OpenCL-bound, the A530M offers a surprisingly close alternative at a potentially different system-level price point. Given that the A550M is marked end-of-life while the A530M is active, the latter may be the more accessible option in the current mobile market, but the data clearly shows the A550M as the higher-performing part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs were tested in two Geekbench workloads: OpenCL and Vulkan. The results show a nuanced picture. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A550M scores 49894 against the A530M’s 49735, a razor-thin 0.3% delta. This is effectively a statistical tie, and the data suggests that in OpenCL compute tasks, the two cards are nearly interchangeable. The A550M’s advantage in shading units and texture rate does not translate into a meaningful OpenCL lead, likely because the workload is not fully saturating the execution resources of either GPU.

The Vulkan test tells a completely different story. Here, the A550M scores 49580, while the A530M falls to 43492. This 14% margin is substantial and indicates that the A550M’s architectural advantages are far more pronounced in Vulkan-optimized workloads. The A550M’s higher boost clock of 2050 MHz compared to 1300 MHz, combined with its 33% more shading units, likely explains this gap. Vulkan’s lower-level API overhead allows the A550M to fully utilize its additional compute resources, whereas OpenCL’s more abstracted model may level the playing field.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the A550M’s average score of 49737 is 2.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (48477) and 2.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (50951). The A530M’s average of 46614 is 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46043) and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972). This places the A550M in a higher performance tier overall, with its nearest rivals being more powerful desktop-class GPUs, while the A530M competes with mid-range mobile and workstation parts.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share several core specifications but diverge sharply in compute resources and clock speeds. Both feature 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and 14 Gbps effective memory speed. Both also have a base clock of 900 MHz and a TDP in the 60–65 W range. The bus interface differs: the A550M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the A530M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This could impact bandwidth in PCIe-bound scenarios, though the memory subsystem is identical.

The boost clock is a major differentiator: the A550M boosts to 2050 MHz, while the A530M tops out at 1300 MHz. This 750 MHz difference is the single largest clock-speed gap between the two. Shading units are 2048 on the A550M versus 1536 on the A530M, a 33% increase. Texture mapping units (TMUs) are 128 versus 96, and render output units (ROPs) are 64 versus 48. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: 16 on the A550M versus 12 on the A530M.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The A550M achieves 131.2 GPixel/s and 262.4 GTexel/s, while the A530M manages 62.40 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s. This is a 110% advantage in pixel rate and a 110% advantage in texture rate for the A550M, driven by its higher clocks and wider execution pipelines. FP32 performance is 8.397 TFLOPS for the A550M versus 3.994 TFLOPS for the A530M; FP16 (2:1) is 16.79 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS. The production status also differs, with the A550M listed as end-of-life and the A530M as active, with the latter having a release date of July 31, 2023.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture using TSMC’s 6 nm process node, but they employ different chips. The A550M uses the DG2-512 chip, while the A530M uses the DG2-256 chip. This is a fundamental distinction: the DG2-512 die measures 406 mm² and contains 21,700 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 53.4M per mm². The DG2-256 die is significantly smaller at 269 mm² with 11,500 million transistors, for a density of 42.8M per mm². The A550M’s die is therefore 51% larger and carries 89% more transistors, which explains its superior resource counts.

The transistor density difference — 53.4M/mm² versus 42.8M/mm² — indicates that the A550M’s larger die is also more efficiently packed, likely due to a higher proportion of execution units relative to fixed-function hardware. The A550M’s 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs are all positioned to deliver higher throughput than the A530M’s 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The ray tracing core count of 16 versus 12 further reinforces the A550M’s architectural superiority.

Both GPUs support the same API set — DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 — so there is no software feature differentiation. The A550M’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus the A530M’s PCIe 4.0 x8 is a notable difference, potentially providing double the host bandwidth for data transfers. Both are listed as IGP slot width with portable-device-dependent display outputs, indicating they are intended for mobile integration rather than discrete desktop cards. The A550M’s higher transistor count and larger die, combined with its superior clock speeds, make it the architecturally dominant part in every compute dimension.