Intel Arc A530M vs Intel Arc A730M Comparison

The Intel Arc A530M and Intel Arc A730M are both Alchemist-generation mobile GPUs built on the Xe-HPG architecture and the same 6 nm TSMC process, but they are distinctly different silicon. The A530M uses the DG2-256 chip with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, while the A730M uses the larger DG2-512 chip with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die. Despite the A730M’s overwhelming lead in the two shared benchmark tests, the A530M actually holds a higher average benchmark score (46,614 vs. 45,592) and a higher percentile rank (86th vs. 85th). The head-to-head data, however, is unambiguous: in both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, the A730M wins by margins of 29.3% and 32.8%, respectively. This analysis breaks down the numbers, architecture differences, and what the data means for each part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The FACT PACK provides two direct comparisons: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the A730M scores 70,352 against the A530M’s 49,735, a delta of -29.3% (meaning the A530M is 29.3% slower). In Vulkan, the gap is even wider: the A730M scores 64,693 versus the A530M’s 43,492, a delta of -32.8%. Both tests are decisive wins for the A730M, and the Vulkan advantage is particularly pronounced.

These results are consistent with the hardware disparity. The A730M has exactly double the shading units (3,072 vs. 1,536), double the texture mapping units (192 vs. 96), and double the ROPs (96 vs. 48). It also has twice the ray tracing cores (24 vs. 12). The raw compute numbers reflect this: FP32 throughput is 12.60 TFLOPS for the A730M versus 3.994 TFLOPS for the A530M, a factor of roughly 3.15. The A730M’s boost clock is also much higher at 2050 MHz versus 1300 MHz, and its base clock is 1100 MHz versus 900 MHz.

However, the A530M’s average benchmark score is higher than the A730M’s, which seems contradictory. The average for the A530M is 46,614, while the A730M averages 45,592. This is likely because the A530M only has two benchmark entries (OpenCL and Vulkan) in the pack, while the A730M also includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,732. That additional test, presumably lower in absolute terms, drags down the A730M’s average. Still, in the two tests where both are measured, the A730M is the clear victor. The percentile ranks are close—86th for the A530M, 85th for the A730M—but the A530M edges ahead in that metric.

The Verdict

From the data, the A730M is the superior performer in the two shared workloads. It leads by 29.3% in OpenCL and 32.8% in Vulkan, and it also has far higher peak specifications: 12.60 TFLOPS FP32, 196.8 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 393.6 GTexel/s texture rate. If the decision hinges solely on raw compute in these APIs, the A730M is the obvious choice.

Yet the A530M has its own advantages. It holds a higher average benchmark score (46,614 vs. 45,592) and a higher percentile rank (86th vs. 85th). It is also the only one of the two listed as “Active” in production status; the A730M is marked “End-of-life.” The A530M has a release date (2023-07-31) while the A730M’s is not provided. Additionally, the A530M has a lower TDP of 65 W versus 80 W, which could be relevant for mobile thermal budgets, though the pack does not quantify performance per watt.

Which should you pick? If you need maximum performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the A730M is the data-backed winner. If you prioritize overall benchmark standing, availability, and a lower power envelope, the A530M is the more sensible choice based on the given numbers. The A730M’s end-of-life status also suggests it may be harder to source, while the A530M remains active.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the same Xe-HPG architecture and are both manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process, but they are fundamentally different chips. The A530M is built on DG2-256 with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 42.8 million per mm². The A730M uses DG2-512 with 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, for a density of 53.4 million per mm². That higher density indicates a more complex layout, and the raw transistor count is nearly double.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A730M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 336.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective), so the difference is purely bus width and capacity. The A730M also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the A530M is limited to x8—a potential bottleneck for data transfer, though not directly benchmarked here.

Compute resources are doubled or more in the A730M: shading units 3,072 vs. 1,536, TMUs 192 vs. 96, ROPs 96 vs. 48, and RT cores 24 vs. 12. The A730M’s clock speeds are higher too—base 1100 MHz vs. 900 MHz, boost 2050 MHz vs. 1300 MHz. This leads to much higher fill rates: pixel rate 196.8 GPixel/s vs. 62.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate 393.6 GTexel/s vs. 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 12.60 TFLOPS vs. 3.994 TFLOPS, and FP16 (2:1) is 25.19 TFLOPS vs. 7.987 TFLOPS.

The A730M has a higher TDP of 80 W versus 65 W, though both are listed as “IGP” slot width, meaning they are integrated into a mobile platform. Display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent” for both. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A730M also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,732 in the pack; the A530M has no such entry. Production status differs: A530M is Active, A730M is End-of-life. The A530M has a release date of 2023-07-31; the A730M’s is not listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc A730M has 336.0 GB/s bandwidth (12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus), while the Intel Arc A530M has 224.0 GB/s (8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus).

Q: How much faster is the A730M in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The A730M scores 64,693 versus the A530M’s 43,492, a delta of -32.8% (the A530M is 32.8% slower).

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The A530M has an average score of 46,614, while the A730M averages 45,592, making the A530M 2.2% higher.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute?

A: The A730M delivers 12.60 TFLOPS FP32, while the A530M delivers 3.994 TFLOPS—a factor of about 3.15.

Q: Which GPU is still in production?

A: The Intel Arc A530M is listed as “Active,” while the Intel Arc A730M is listed as “End-of-life.”

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The A730M wins every head-to-head benchmark included: Geekbench OpenCL (70,352 vs. 49,735) and Geekbench Vulkan (64,693 vs. 43,492). It also wins on every raw compute specification—higher shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, and FP16. Its memory bandwidth is 50% higher (336.0 vs. 224.0 GB/s). For any workload that leverages these resources, the A730M is the clear performance leader.

The A530M, however, wins on overall standing: its average benchmark score of 46,614 exceeds the A730M’s 45,592, and its 86th percentile rank beats the A730M’s 85th. It is also the only active product, with a release date of 2023-07-31, while the A730M is end-of-life. The A530M has a lower TDP (65 W vs. 80 W), which may be advantageous in thermally constrained mobile chassis. If the decision is based on the aggregate database score, availability, or power draw, the A530M is the better pick. If raw compute in OpenCL/Vulkan is the priority, the A730M is the data-driven winner.