Intel Arc A530M vs NVIDIA Tesla M40 Comparison

Intel Arc A530M and NVIDIA Tesla M40 represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that starkly. The Intel part is a modern, power-efficient mobile chip, while the NVIDIA card is a legacy datacenter workhorse. Across the two head-to-head tests, the wins are split: the Arc A530M takes the OpenCL benchmark decisively, while the Tesla M40 edges ahead in Vulkan. This creates an interesting profile where the newer architecture dominates in one compute API, but the older card’s raw throughput still holds up in another.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant divergence appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 scores 39,192. That is a 26.9% advantage for Intel, which is a substantial margin in any compute comparison. This result aligns with the Arc A530M’s modern Xe-HPG architecture and its 7.987 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio), which is a key metric for compute workloads that can leverage reduced precision. The Tesla M40, by contrast, has no listed FP16 capability, so it cannot compete in that specific domain. The OpenCL score difference also places the Arc A530M in a strong position relative to its own nearest rivals, sitting at the 85th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 46,614. Its closest competitor in that list is the AMD Radeon RX 6550M, which is only 0.2% behind, showing that the Arc part is competitively positioned among modern mobile GPUs.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the tables turn, but by a much smaller margin. The NVIDIA Tesla M40 scores 44,602, beating the Intel Arc A530M’s 43,492 by a modest 2.5%. While this is a win for NVIDIA, it is nowhere near the scale of Intel’s OpenCL victory. The Tesla M40’s higher raw FP32 throughput of 6.832 TFLOPS, compared to Intel’s 3.994 TFLOPS, likely contributes to this result, as Vulkan often relies more on straightforward shader execution. The Tesla M40 also has a higher pixel rate (106.8 GPixel/s vs 62.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.5 GTexel/s vs 124.8 GTexel/s), which are factors that can influence graphics-oriented API performance. Despite this win, the Tesla M40’s overall standing is lower; it sits at the 83rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 41,897, and its closest rival in the data is the NVIDIA Tesla M40 24 GB, which is only 0.5% faster.

The overall win count is tied at one each, but the magnitude of the Intel victory in OpenCL outweighs the NVIDIA victory in Vulkan. A 26.9% lead is far more consequential than a 2.5% lead, especially for compute-focused tasks. The data suggests that the Arc A530M is the better all-around performer in modern compute API workloads, while the Tesla M40 retains a narrow edge in a single legacy-oriented API.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the Intel Arc A530M is the stronger choice for most users. It wins the more demanding OpenCL benchmark by a huge margin, has a higher average benchmark score (46,614 vs 41,897), and boasts a better percentile ranking (85th vs 83rd). Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while smaller than the Tesla’s 12 GB, comes with a more modern memory type and a 224.0 GB/s bandwidth that is adequate for its class. The Arc A530M is also an actively produced part with a 65 W TDP, making it suitable for portable devices, whereas the Tesla M40 is end-of-life with a 250 W TDP and no display outputs.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 is only worth considering for specific legacy use cases, and even then, the data is not flattering. Its Vulkan win is narrow, and its OpenCL loss is crushing. The card has more memory (12 GB) and a wider 384-bit bus, yielding higher bandwidth (288.4 GB/s), but its older GDDR5 memory and slower effective speed (6 Gbps vs 14 Gbps) undermine that advantage. With no display outputs, it cannot serve as a desktop graphics card, and its dual-slot design with an 8-pin EPS power connector and a suggested 600 W PSU makes it a challenging install. For anyone building a new system, the Arc A530M is the clear pick. For anyone maintaining a Tesla-specific compute cluster that relies on Vulkan, the M40 could still be relevant, but the data shows it is a narrow niche.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has an average benchmark score of 46,614, which is higher than the NVIDIA Tesla M40’s average of 41,897.

Q: How large is the difference in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel Arc A530M scores 49,735 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 scores 39,192, giving Intel a 26.9% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Tesla M40 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Tesla M40 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 44,602, beating the Arc A530M’s 43,492 by 2.5%.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two GPUs?

A: The Intel Arc A530M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M40 has higher FP32 performance at 6.832 TFLOPS, compared to the Intel Arc A530M’s 3.994 TFLOPS.

Q: Are both GPUs currently in production?

A: No, the Intel Arc A530M has an active production status, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 is marked as end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every core specification, reflecting their different design goals. The Intel Arc A530M uses 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the NVIDIA Tesla M40 uses 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units, the Arc A530M’s smaller footprint is offset by its higher memory clock. The Arc A530M runs its GDDR6 memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the Tesla M40 runs its GDDR5 memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). This results in the Arc A530M having a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Tesla M40’s 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The Arc A530M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, whereas the Tesla M40 has a base clock of 948 MHz and a boost clock of 1112 MHz. The Tesla M40’s higher base clock and wider bus give it superior pixel and texture rates (106.8 GPixel/s and 213.5 GTexel/s vs 62.40 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s). Power consumption is a major divider: the Arc A530M is rated at 65 W and is an IGP form factor, while the Tesla M40 is a dual-slot card at 250 W, requiring an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Arc A530M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Tesla M40 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Tesla M40 has no display outputs, while the Arc A530M’s outputs are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The Intel Arc A530M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture (Alchemist generation) using a DG2-256 chip on a 6 nm process from TSMC. It packs 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Tesla M40 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a GM200 chip on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. It has 8,000 million transistors on a much larger 601 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 13.3M per mm². The Arc A530M includes 12 ray tracing cores, which the Tesla M40 lacks entirely. The Arc A530M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Tesla M40 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Arc A530M has FP16 performance of 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Tesla M40 has no listed FP16 capability.

The release dates underscore the generation gap: the Arc A530M launched on 2023-07-31, while the Tesla M40 launched on 2015-11-09. The Tesla M40’s predecessor is Tesla Kepler, and its successor is Tesla Pascal, showing its place in a discontinued line. The Arc A530M has no listed predecessor or successor, indicating it is a standalone mobile part in the current Arc 5 series.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A530M wins in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, as evidenced by its 26.9% lead in that benchmark. It is also the clear winner for any mobile or portable application, given its 65 W TDP, IGP slot width, and active production status. For users who need modern API support, the Arc A530M’s DirectX 12 Ultimate and 12 ray tracing cores make it the only option here for ray-traced content. Its higher memory clock (14 Gbps effective) and smaller die size suggest it is better suited for efficiency-conscious builds.

The NVIDIA Tesla M40 wins in the Vulkan API, where its 2.5% edge shows that raw FP32 throughput and higher texture/pixel rates still matter. It also offers more memory (12 GB) and higher bandwidth (288.4 GB/s), which could be beneficial for workloads that need large datasets but do not require ray tracing or FP16. The Tesla M40’s higher base clock (948 MHz) and boost clock (1112 MHz) also contribute to its strength in sustained, single-precision compute tasks. However, its lack of display outputs and high power draw mean it is only viable in a server or dedicated compute rig, never as a primary graphics solution. The data indicates that the Arc A530M is the more versatile and future-proof choice, while the Tesla M40 is a legacy part for niche, Vulkan-centric compute tasks.