Intel Arc A530M vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal records an average benchmark score of 72,098, while the Intel Arc A530M records 46,614. That places the TITAN X Pascal at the 91st percentile of all GPUs in the database, compared to the 85th percentile for the Arc A530M.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 versus 49,735 for the Intel Arc A530M. The TITAN X Pascal wins by 34.1% in this workload.

Q: Which GPU shows a larger advantage in Vulkan performance?

A: The Vulkan test shows a more pronounced lead for the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal. It scores 77,499 against the Intel Arc A530M's 43,492, a delta of 78.2% in favor of the TITAN X Pascal.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card according to the database?

A: For the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 with an average score of 72,379, a delta of -0.4%. For the Intel Arc A530M, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5600M with an average score of 46,601, a delta of 0%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal achieves 147.0 GPixel/s, while the Intel Arc A530M achieves 62.40 GPixel/s. The TITAN X Pascal is roughly 2.35 times faster in this metric.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Intel Arc A530M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes additional features beyond the baseline 12_1 profile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal uses the GP102 chip built on TSMC's 16 nm process, with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 25.1 million per mm². In contrast, the Intel Arc A530M uses the DG2-256 chip on TSMC's 6 nm process, packing 11,500 million transistors into a much smaller 269 mm² die, for a density of 42.8 million per mm².

The shader configuration differs substantially. The TITAN X Pascal contains 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 raster operation units (ROPs). The Arc A530M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Additionally, the Arc A530M includes 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pascal architecture. The TITAN X Pascal has no ray tracing acceleration hardware.

Memory architecture also separates these parts. The TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 480.4 GB/s. The Arc A530M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s. The TITAN X Pascal's memory clock runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective, while the Arc A530M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. Despite the faster clock on the Arc, its narrower bus limits overall bandwidth.

Compute capabilities diverge sharply in mixed-precision work. The TITAN X Pascal delivers 10.97 TFLOPS of FP32 and only 171.5 GFLOPS of FP16, due to a 1:64 ratio. The Arc A530M delivers 3.994 TFLOPS of FP32 but 7.987 TFLOPS of FP16, using a 2:1 ratio. This means the Intel part is far more capable in FP16 workloads per unit of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA part has a massive FP32 advantage.

The power envelope reflects the different market positions. The TITAN X Pascal has a TDP of 250 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Arc A530M is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with a TDP of 65 W, no external power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. The interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two Geekbench tests, and the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins both. In OpenCL, the TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 against 49,735 for the Arc A530M, a 34.1% margin. This aligns with the raw compute advantage: the TITAN X Pascal has more than double the FP32 throughput (10.97 TFLOPS versus 3.994 TFLOPS) and nearly three times the texture fill rate (342.9 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s).

The Vulkan test shows an even wider gap. The TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499, while the Arc A530M scores 43,492, giving the NVIDIA part a 78.2% lead. This larger margin suggests the Vulkan workload favors the TITAN X Pascal's higher memory bandwidth and larger ROP count more heavily. The 480.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s, combined with 96 ROPs versus 48, likely contributes to this disproportionate advantage.

Looking at the broader database context, the TITAN X Pascal's average score of 72,098 sits just 0.4% below the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon RX 6650M. The Arc A530M's average of 46,614 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (0% delta) and sits 1.2% above the NVIDIA RTX A2000. This places the two cards in completely different performance tiers within the database.

The wins tally confirms the sweep: 2 wins for the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, 0 for the Intel Arc A530M. No benchmark in the dataset shows the Intel part ahead. The closest the Arc comes is the OpenCL test, where it still trails by more than a third. The Vulkan gap is nearly twice as large in percentage terms.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner for raw performance: the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a 54.7% higher average benchmark score (72,098 versus 46,614), and sits at the 91st percentile versus the 85th for the Intel Arc A530M. For any application that prioritizes absolute throughput in FP32, texture fill, or pixel fill, the TITAN X Pascal is the stronger choice.

However, the Intel Arc A530M offers a fundamentally different value proposition in the database. It has a 65 W TDP versus 250 W, requires no external power connectors, and is an integrated solution with no dedicated slot width. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with ray tracing cores, which the Pascal card cannot offer. Its FP16 performance of 7.987 TFLOPS is far higher than the TITAN X Pascal's 171.5 GFLOPS, making it substantially better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision math.

The choice depends on the intended environment. For a desktop workstation or gaming rig where power and space are available, the TITAN X Pascal provides significantly higher performance in the measured tests. For a mobile or low-power integrated system where the workload favors FP16 compute or ray tracing, the Arc A530M is the only viable option among these two, despite its lower overall scores. The data does not suggest the Arc A530M can match the TITAN X Pascal in traditional rasterization or general compute benchmarks.

Specification Differences

• Process node: 16 nm (NVIDIA) versus 6 nm (Intel)
• Die size: 471 mm² (NVIDIA) versus 269 mm² (Intel)
• Transistor density: 25.1M / mm² (NVIDIA) versus 42.8M / mm² (Intel)
• Base clock: 1417 MHz (NVIDIA) versus 900 MHz (Intel)
• Boost clock: 1531 MHz (NVIDIA) versus 1300 MHz (Intel)
• Memory size: 12 GB (NVIDIA) versus 8 GB (Intel)
• Memory type: GDDR5X (NVIDIA) versus GDDR6 (Intel)
• Memory bus width: 384 bit (NVIDIA) versus 128 bit (Intel)
• Memory bandwidth: 480.4 GB/s (NVIDIA) versus 224.0 GB/s (Intel)
• Shading units: 3584 (NVIDIA) versus 1536 (Intel)
• TMUs: 224 (NVIDIA) versus 96 (Intel)
• ROPs: 96 (NVIDIA) versus 48 (Intel)
• Ray tracing cores: 0 (NVIDIA) versus 12 (Intel)
• Pixel rate: 147.0 GPixel/s (NVIDIA) versus 62.40 GPixel/s (Intel)
• Texture rate: 342.9 GTexel/s (NVIDIA) versus 124.8 GTexel/s (Intel)
• FP32: 10.97 TFLOPS (NVIDIA) versus 3.994 TFLOPS (Intel)
• FP16: 171.5 GFLOPS (NVIDIA) versus 7.987 TFLOPS (Intel)
• TDP: 250 W (NVIDIA) versus 65 W (Intel)
• Slot width: Dual-slot (NVIDIA) versus IGP (Intel)
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin (NVIDIA) versus none (Intel)
• Suggested PSU: 600 W (NVIDIA) versus none (Intel)
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (NVIDIA) versus PCIe 4.0 x8 (Intel)
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (NVIDIA) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) (Intel)
• Production status: End-of-life (NVIDIA) versus Active (Intel)
• Release date: 2016-08-01 (NVIDIA) versus 2023-07-31 (Intel)

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal dominates in every measured benchmark, but its strengths are concentrated in specific areas. Its FP32 throughput of 10.97 TFLOPS is 2.75 times that of the Arc A530M, making it the clear choice for traditional single-precision compute tasks. Its pixel rate of 147.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 342.9 GTexel/s are more than double the Intel part, indicating superiority in rasterization-heavy workloads. The 480.4 GB/s memory bandwidth supports high-resolution textures and large data sets, and the 12 GB frame buffer allows for larger working sets than the 8 GB on the Arc A530M.

The Intel Arc A530M wins in efficiency and feature support. Its 65 W TDP is 74% lower than the NVIDIA card's 250 W, making it suitable for compact or mobile systems where power is constrained. The 12 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a capability the Pascal architecture lacks entirely. Its FP16 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS is 46.6 times higher than the TITAN X Pascal's 171.5 GFLOPS, making it dramatically better for machine learning inference or other half-precision workloads. The DirectX 12 Ultimate support also enables newer rendering features that the TITAN X Pascal cannot access.

For a user with a desktop slot, a 600 W PSU, and a need for maximum measured performance, the data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal. For a user building a low-power integrated system that needs ray tracing or FP16 compute, the Intel Arc A530M is the only part that meets those requirements, even though it trails significantly in the database's benchmarks. The recorded scores show a 78.2% gap in Vulkan and a 34.1% gap in OpenCL, both favoring the NVIDIA part, but the Intel card's feature set addresses a different set of priorities that no benchmark in this dataset can fully capture.