Intel Arc A530M vs NVIDIA CMP 30HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive NVIDIA CMP 30HX advantage across both available benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 65,199 against the Intel Arc A530M’s 49,735, a 31.1% lead. The Vulkan test widens the gap further: the NVIDIA part reaches 62,484 while Intel manages 43,492, a 43.7% difference. Every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison favors NVIDIA, with two wins for the CMP 30HX and none for the Arc A530M.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX sits at 63,842, while the Intel Arc A530M averages 46,614. That places the NVIDIA part roughly 37% higher than the Intel part on aggregate, though the exact percentage is not directly listed in the data. The OpenCL delta of 31.1% and the Vulkan delta of 43.7% both confirm a consistent pattern: the NVIDIA card is faster in compute-oriented workloads regardless of the API used.

What is more interesting is how each GPU positions against its own competitive tier. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP, averages 63,830, a delta of 0% versus the NVIDIA card’s 63,842. Essentially a tie. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M trails by a hair at 0.1%, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 is 0.2% behind. The only rival ahead of the CMP 30HX is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 90 9100, at 64,212, which leads by 0.6%. In other words, the CMP 30HX is essentially at par with the top of its immediate peer group.

The Intel Arc A530M, by contrast, anchors the lower end of a very different neighborhood. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, averages 46,601, a 0% delta versus 46,614. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is slightly ahead at 46,702, leading by 0.2%, and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 comes in at 46,043, 1.2% behind the Intel part. The NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation rounds out the group at 45,972, 1.4% lower. The spread here is smaller than the gap between the two headline products, but the Intel part’s percentile rank of 85 versus the NVIDIA part’s percentile rank of 89 reinforces the hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different silicon lineages. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX uses the TU116 chip built on Turing architecture on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 284 mm² and packs 6,600 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A530M, meanwhile, uses the DG2-256 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, specifically from the Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) generation. Intel also uses TSMC as the foundry, but on a 6 nm process. The die is slightly smaller at 269 mm², yet it holds significantly more transistors: 11,500 million. That translates to a much denser 42.8 million transistors per square millimeter, nearly double the density of the NVIDIA chip.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The NVIDIA card runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1785 MHz. The Intel part starts at just 900 MHz base and boosts to 1300 MHz. Even with the Intel part’s higher transistor count, its lower clock ceiling means it cannot convert all that silicon into raw speed.

Memory configurations differ in size and bus width. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A530M offers 8 GB of GDDR6 but on a narrower 128-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 224.0 GB/s. Both run memory at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, so the difference in bandwidth comes purely from the bus width.

Compute resources paint a mixed picture. The Intel part has more shading units (1536 versus 1408), more texture mapping units (96 versus 88), and matching raster output units (48 on both). It also includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA part has none listed. Yet the NVIDIA card still posts higher fill rates: 85.68 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, and 157.1 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance also favors NVIDIA, with 5.027 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) against Intel’s 3.994 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Intel card’s higher shader count cannot overcome its lower clocks.

Power and physical design tell a tale of two use cases. The NVIDIA card is rated at 125 W, needs a single 8-pin power connector, requires a 300 W suggested power supply, and comes as a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide. It has no display outputs at all. The Intel part is rated at only 65 W, is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connector specified, no suggested PSU, and no dimensions recorded. Its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed to be integrated into a laptop or portable device rather than plugged into a desktop.

API support differs as well. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part steps up to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while keeping OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part also has a newer release date, launching in 2023-07-31 versus the NVIDIA card’s 2021-02-24. The NVIDIA part is end-of-life, while Intel’s is still active.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX wins everywhere the benchmark data measures. In OpenCL, its 31.1% advantage suggests it is the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads, particularly those that rely on the OpenCL API. In Vulkan, the 43.7% margin indicates an even larger lead for gaming-style graphics workloads, at least in synthetic tests. Given that the NVIDIA card was explicitly designed as a mining GPU with no display outputs, its dominance in compute-heavy synthetic benchmarks aligns with its intended role.

The Intel Arc A530M, despite losing both tests, is not without a niche. Its 8 GB memory capacity exceeds the NVIDIA card’s 6 GB, which could matter for workloads that need larger working sets. Its much lower 65 W TDP compared to 125 W means it can fit into power-constrained portable devices, as its "Portable Device Dependent" display output suggests. Its 12 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it features the NVIDIA card lacks entirely, which could matter for modern graphics APIs even if raw benchmark scores are lower.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is for raw compute throughput where power draw and physical size are secondary concerns. The Intel Arc A530M is for integrated, mobile, power-conscious designs where the ability to drive a display and support modern graphics features like ray tracing matters more than peak benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX averages 63,842, while the Intel Arc A530M averages 46,614. The NVIDIA card sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the Intel card’s 85th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX scores 62,484 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 43,492 for the Intel Arc A530M, a 43.7% lead for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A530M have more memory?

A: Yes, the Intel part has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA CMP 30HX has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 336.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 30HX is rated at 125 W, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested power supply. The Intel Arc A530M is rated at 65 W, has no power connector listed, and no suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc A530M includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA CMP 30HX lists no ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Does the NVIDIA CMP 30HX have display outputs?

A: No, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX has no display outputs. The Intel Arc A530M has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node: NVIDIA uses 12 nm, Intel uses 6 nm, both at TSMC. Transistor count: NVIDIA has 6,600 million, Intel has 11,500 million. Die size: NVIDIA is 284 mm², Intel is 269 mm². Transistor density: 23.2 million per mm² for NVIDIA versus 42.8 million per mm² for Intel. Base clock: 1530 MHz versus 900 MHz. Boost clock: 1785 MHz versus 1300 MHz. Memory size: 6 GB versus 8 GB. Memory bus: 192-bit versus 128-bit. Memory bandwidth: 336.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. Shading units: 1408 versus 1536. TMUs: 88 versus 96. ROPs: 48 on both, so no difference there. Ray tracing cores: none listed for NVIDIA, 12 for Intel. Pixel rate: 85.68 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 157.1 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 5.027 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS. FP16: 10.05 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS. TDP: 125 W versus 65 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connector: 1x 8-pin for NVIDIA, none for Intel. Bus interface: PCIe 1.0 x4 for NVIDIA, PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel. Display outputs: none for NVIDIA, portable-device-dependent for Intel. Production status: NVIDIA is end-of-life, Intel is active. Release date: 2021-02-24 for NVIDIA, 2023-07-31 for Intel. DirectX support: 12 (12_1) for NVIDIA, 12 Ultimate for Intel. Both support OpenGL 4.4 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those match there is no difference there in those two.

The Verdict

The data points in the database overwhelmingly favor the NVIDIA CMP 30HX. It wins both benchmark tests, has higher fill rates, higher floating-point throughput, higher memory bandwidth, and higher clocks. Its average score of 63,842 places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, well above the Intel part’s 46,614 and 85th percentile. For anyone choosing purely on synthetic compute performance, the NVIDIA card is the clear pick.

But the Intel Arc A530M has structural advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. It is built on a smaller process node with higher transistor density, supports ray tracing, has more memory capacity, and consumes less than half the power of the NVIDIA card. Its 65 W TDP, integrated form factor, and portable-device-dependent display outputs make it a fundamentally different product category. The NVIDIA CMP 30HX, by contrast, requires a 125 W power budget, a dedicated 8-pin connector, a 300 W PSU, and a dual-slot chassis, with no ability to drive a display at all.

The NVIDIA CMP 30HX should be selected by anyone who needs maximum compute throughput in a desktop-class environment where power draw and physical footprint are secondary. The Intel Arc A530M should be selected by anyone building a power-constrained mobile platform that needs modern graphics features like ray tracing and a larger memory pool. The NVIDIA card at 125 W and 125 W is simply not in the same class as the 65 W Intel part, and its lack of display outputs seals the distinction. The verdict, strictly from the recorded data, is that the NVIDIA CMP 30HX is the faster GPU, and the Intel Arc A530M is the more feature-rich mobile chip with a lower power profile. The benchmarks settle the question quickly, and the specification sheet explains why the gap exists in the first place.