GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 and Intel Arc A530M occupy vastly different corners of the GPU market, and the benchmark data quantifies that gulf with brutal clarity. While the RTX 4080 is a desktop flagship built for maximum throughput, the Arc A530M is a mobile part designed for efficiency in compact systems. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the RTX 4080 secures a clean sweep, but the Arc A530M holds its own in the broader performance percentile rankings, making this a comparison of raw power versus targeted capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a one-sided contest in the two directly comparable tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 scores 214,739 against the Intel Arc A530M’s 49,735, delivering a commanding 331.8% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is a generational chasm. The RTX 4080’s score reflects its massive compute resources, while the Arc A530M’s result aligns with its mobile, power-constrained design.

The Vulkan benchmark is even more lopsided. The RTX 4080 posts 263,779, while the Arc A530M manages 43,492, resulting in a staggering 506.5% delta. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture scales exceptionally well in low-level API workloads, where its 48.74 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 304 texture mapping units can be fully utilized. The Intel part, with 3.994 TFLOPS FP32, simply lacks the raw throughput to compete at this level.

Despite the sweep, context matters. The RTX 4080’s average benchmark score across all tests is 54,247, placing it at the 86th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, which scores 54,209, a mere 0.1% difference. The Arc A530M, by contrast, averages 46,614, sitting at the 85th percentile. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 5600M, which scores 46,601, a negligible 0% delta. So while the RTX 4080 is absolutely faster, the Arc A530M is not far behind in percentile standing, indicating it competes effectively within its own performance class.

The RTX 4080 also wins on every other recorded metric, including Passmark G3D (34,457 vs. no comparable data for the Intel part) and Geekbench compute tests. The Arc A530M simply lacks the benchmark coverage to mount a challenge, and the two tests it does share are its worst-case scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different philosophies. The RTX 4080 uses the AD103 chip on NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process. This node packs 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A530M uses the DG2-256 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, also from TSMC but on a 6 nm node. It contains 11,500 million transistors across a 269 mm² die, with a density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. The process advantage is clear: Ada Lovelace crams nearly three times the transistors into only 1.4 times the die area.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The RTX 4080 features 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective). The Arc A530M halves this to 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s from a 1750 MHz clock (14 Gbps effective). That is a 3.2x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part, which directly feeds its higher fill rates.

Compute resources are equally mismatched. The RTX 4080 fields 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, alongside 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores. The Arc A530M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with 12 RT cores and no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part’s pixel rate is 280.6 GPixel/s versus 62.40 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 761.5 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 48.74 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS, while FP16 is 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA and 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.

Power and physical design tell the story of intended use. The RTX 4080 has a 320 W TDP, requires a triple-slot cooler with a 1x 16-pin power connector, and needs a 700 W suggested PSU. It measures 310 mm in length, 140 mm in height, and 61 mm in width. The Arc A530M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 65 W TDP, no external power connector, and no suggested PSU. Its dimensions are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is soldered onto a motherboard. The RTX 4080 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the Arc A530M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 averages 54,247 across all benchmark tests, while the Intel Arc A530M averages 46,614. The RTX 4080 also holds an 86th percentile ranking versus the Arc A530M’s 85th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4080 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 214,739 compared to the Arc A530M’s 49,735, a 331.8% advantage. This is the smaller of the two deltas between the parts.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4080 leads by 506.5%, scoring 263,779 against the Arc A530M’s 43,492. This indicates the NVIDIA architecture’s strength in low-level API workloads.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A530M have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests available, the RTX 4080 wins both. The Intel part has no recorded wins, and its only two benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 4080 delivers 716.8 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, while the Arc A530M provides 224.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. That is a 3.2x gap in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RTX 4080 has a 320 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested PSU, while the Arc A530M has a 65 W TDP and no separate PSU requirement, as it is an IGP.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity for high-performance desktop users: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the clear choice. Its 506.5% lead in Vulkan and 331.8% lead in OpenCL translate directly to superior frame rates and compute throughput. With 16 GB of memory, 76 RT cores, and 48.74 TFLOPS FP32, it is designed for demanding gaming and creative workloads. Its 86th percentile ranking, just 0.1% behind the RTX 4080 SUPER, confirms it sits at the top tier of available GPUs.

The Intel Arc A530M, however, serves a different purpose. As an IGP with a 65 W TDP, it is meant for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is paramount. Its 85th percentile ranking, statistically tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5600M and RX 6550M, shows it is competitive within its mobile class. The lack of tensor cores and reduced memory bandwidth are acceptable trade-offs for a part that requires no external power and fits in portable devices.

For a desktop builder seeking maximum performance, the RTX 4080 is the only rational pick. For a laptop manufacturer prioritizing battery life and compact design, the Arc A530M offers respectable performance per watt. The RTX 4080 is end-of-life with a successor in the GeForce 50 series, while the Arc A530M remains active in production. The choice hinges entirely on the form factor and power envelope required, not on raw speed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 | Intel Arc A530M |

|----------------|-------------------------|-----------------|

| Chip | AD103 | DG2-256 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 45,900 million | 11,500 million |

| Die Size | 379 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.1M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2205 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2505 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 716.8 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 9728 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 304 | 96 |

| ROPs | 112 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 76 | 12 |

| Tensor Cores | 304 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 280.6 GPixel/s | 62.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 761.5 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 48.74 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 320 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.13x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm | null |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2022-09-19 | 2023-07-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,199 USD | null |