Intel Arc A530M vs NVIDIA CMP 50HX Comparison

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX and Intel Arc A530M occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, yet their benchmark scores place them surprisingly close in the aggregate rankings. The data shows a clear, but not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA part in both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the CMP 50HX scores 56,135 against the Arc A530M’s 49,735, a 12.9% advantage. The gap narrows in the Vulkan test, where the CMP 50HX posts 47,445 versus 43,492 for the Intel part, a 9.1% lead. These are the only two direct comparisons available, and the NVIDIA card wins both, giving it a 2-0 sweep in head-to-head wins. However, the margin is not lopsided; the Intel part is competitive enough to stay within striking distance, particularly in Vulkan, which often reflects driver and API optimization more than raw hardware capability. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the CMP 50HX averages 51,790 across all tests, while the Arc A530M averages 46,614. That 5,176-point gap translates to a meaningful but not insurmountable performance difference in synthetic workloads. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the CMP 50HX sits in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, just one point above the Arc A530M’s 85th percentile. For a card with a 250 W TDP and a massive 754 mm² die, the CMP 50HX’s edge over a 65 W mobile chip is expected, but the fact that the gap is only 12.9% in the best case raises questions about architectural efficiency versus brute force.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the clearest statement of intent from the NVIDIA CMP 50HX. Its score of 56,135 outpaces the Intel Arc A530M’s 49,735 by 12.9%, a solid margin that reflects the former’s raw compute resources. The CMP 50HX carries 3,584 shading units and 448 tensor cores, while the Arc A530M has only 1,536 shading units and no tensor core listing in the data. That 2.3x difference in shading units does not translate into a 2.3x performance lead, which suggests that the Intel architecture extracts more work per shader, or that the OpenCL workload is not purely shader-bound. The Vulkan test narrows the gap further: 47,445 for the CMP 50HX versus 43,492 for the Arc A530M, a 9.1% difference. Vulkan’s lower overhead and more direct hardware access often favor architectures with better driver efficiency, and Intel’s Xe-HPG design appears to close the distance here. The deltaPct values in the nearest rivals lists provide context: the CMP 50HX’s closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT, is only 1.6% behind its average score of 50,951, while the Arc A530M’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, is within 0% of its 46,601 average. This means the NVIDIA card sits in a slightly higher performance tier, but the Intel part is not far removed from it in practical terms. In raw numbers, the CMP 50HX wins both tests, but the single-digit percentage margins in Vulkan hint that the Arc A530M’s 6 nm process and newer architecture are doing more with less. The data does not support a narrative of dominance; it supports a narrative of incremental advantage for the NVIDIA part, with the Intel card punching above its weight class given its smaller die and lower power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, and the data quantifies it precisely. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX is built on the Turing architecture, using a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter, which is low by modern standards. The Intel Arc A530M, in contrast, uses the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, yielding a density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. The density difference is nearly 2x, and it explains why Intel can pack a competitive GPU into a fraction of the silicon area. The CMP 50HX is a dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 250 W TDP, while the Arc A530M is an IGP-class mobile part with no discrete power connectors and a 65 W TDP. That 185 W difference is the single largest architectural gap in the data. The memory subsystems also diverge sharply: the CMP 50HX has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, capped at 224.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card’s bandwidth is 2.5x higher, which matters for compute-heavy workloads. Clock speeds tell another story: the CMP 50HX runs at a base of 1350 MHz and boosts to 1545 MHz, while the Arc A530M runs at 900 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the Intel part achieves similar benchmark scores, implying a higher instructions-per-clock efficiency. The ray tracing and tensor cores also differ: the CMP 50HX has 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, while the Arc A530M has only 12 RT cores and no tensor core data. This is a compute monster versus a efficiency-focused mobile chip, and it shows in the feature sets. The bus interface is another differentiator: the CMP 50HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, an oddity for a mining card, while the Arc A530M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which is more modern and practical for a laptop part. The display outputs are also telling: the CMP 50HX has no outputs, reflecting its mining-only purpose, while the Arc A530M’s outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning it is designed to drive laptop panels. The process node and die size are the root causes of the performance-per-watt gap, and the data shows Intel achieving 73% of the NVIDIA card’s average score (46,614 vs 51,790) while drawing only 26% of the power (65 W vs 250 W).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on use case, not raw performance alone. The NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 12.9% lead in OpenCL and a 9.1% lead in Vulkan, and it holds a higher average benchmark score of 51,790 versus 46,614. Its 86th percentile ranking versus the Arc A530M’s 85th adds a single-point edge in overall standing. For anyone prioritizing absolute compute throughput in synthetic workloads, the CMP 50HX is the statistically stronger part. It also offers 10 GB of memory versus 8 GB, a 320-bit bus versus 128-bit, and 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s, which would matter for large datasets. However, the CMP 50HX is end-of-life, has no display outputs, and requires a 600 W suggested PSU alongside a 250 W TDP, making it a niche product for mining or headless compute. The Arc A530M, by contrast, is active in production, has a 65 W TDP, and is designed for mobile integration, with display outputs that are portable-device dependent. Its 6 nm process and 42.8M transistors per mm² density indicate a modern, efficient design that delivers 73% of the NVIDIA card’s average score at a fraction of the power draw. The verdict from the data is that the CMP 50HX is the faster card, but it is a relic of the mining era, while the Arc A530M is a forward-looking mobile GPU that sacrifices raw speed for efficiency and usability. If the workload is fixed, headless compute, and power is not a constraint, the CMP 50HX wins. If the platform is a laptop or a power-limited system, the Arc A530M is the only viable option, and its benchmark scores show it is not far behind.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification, and the data is unambiguous. The process node is 12 nm for the CMP 50HX versus 6 nm for the Arc A530M. Transistor counts are 18,600 million versus 11,500 million, and die sizes are 754 mm² versus 269 mm², leading to densities of 24.7M/mm² versus 42.8M/mm². Base clocks are 1350 MHz versus 900 MHz, and boost clocks are 1545 MHz versus 1300 MHz. Memory size is 10 GB versus 8 GB, both GDDR6, but the bus widths are 320-bit versus 128-bit, yielding bandwidths of 560.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. Shading units are 3,584 versus 1,536, TMUs are 192 versus 96, and ROPs are 80 versus 48. Ray tracing cores are 56 versus 12, and tensor cores are 448 versus null. Pixel rates are 123.6 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 296.6 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 11.07 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 22.15 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratios. TDP is 250 W versus 65 W, and the CMP 50HX is dual-slot with 2x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the Arc A530M is IGP-class with no connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interfaces are PCIe 1.0 x4 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are none versus portable-device dependent. Release dates are June 2021 for the CMP 50HX and July 2023 for the Arc A530M, and production statuses are end-of-life versus active. The APIs are identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so there is no feature gap in that regard.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX has an average benchmark score of 51,790, while the Intel Arc A530M averages 46,614, a difference of 5,176 points.

Q: How much faster is the CMP 50HX in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The CMP 50HX scores 47,445 compared to the Arc A530M’s 43,492, giving it a 9.1% advantage in that test.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The CMP 50HX has a density of 24.7 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Arc A530M has 42.8 million per square millimeter, making the Intel part denser by 18.1 million per square millimeter.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A530M have tensor cores?

A: No, the data lists tensor cores as null for the Arc A530M, whereas the CMP 50HX has 448 tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 50HX has 560.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 2.5 times the Arc A530M’s 224.0 GB/s.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both the CMP 50HX and the Arc A530M support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), as well as OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA CMP 50HX wins in every direct benchmark comparison, but its strengths are specific. It has a 12.9% lead in OpenCL and a 9.1% lead in Vulkan, and it offers 10 GB of memory, a 320-bit bus, and 560.0 GB/s bandwidth, which would benefit memory-intensive compute tasks. Its 11.07 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 296.6 GTexel/s texture rate are far ahead of the Arc A530M’s 3.994 TFLOPS and 124.8 GTexel/s, making it the choice for raw number-crunching. It also has 56 RT cores and 448 tensor cores, which could accelerate ray tracing and AI workloads, though its lack of display outputs limits its use to headless scenarios. The 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU mean it needs a serious power supply, but for a desktop mining rig or a compute server, the data supports its higher throughput. The Intel Arc A530M wins on efficiency and portability. Its 65 W TDP is less than a third of the CMP 50HX’s, and its 6 nm process and 42.8M/mm² density show a modern design that achieves 73% of the NVIDIA card’s average score with far fewer resources. It has no dimension data, no power connectors, and is IGP-class, meaning it is built for laptops, where it can drive displays and handle mobile workloads. Its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and 3.994 TFLOPS are lower, but its 85th percentile ranking is just one point below the CMP 50HX’s 86th, indicating that in real-world mobile tasks, it is not far behind. The Arc A530M is also active in production, while the CMP 50HX is end-of-life, so the Intel part has a future, whereas the NVIDIA part is legacy. For a mobile user, the Arc A530M is the only choice, and the data shows it is a capable one. For a stationary, power-hungry compute task, the CMP 50HX is the clear winner on raw numbers, but it is a dead end.