Arc A530M vs GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and Arc A530M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
2019
6 GB GDDR6, 80 Watt
28.90
+59.2%

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile outperforms Arc A530M by an impressive 59% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking197307
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.00no data
Power efficiency24.8719.22
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameTU116DG2-256
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)1 August 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores15361536
Core clock speed1455 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed1590 MHz1300 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million11,500 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate152.6124.8
Floating-point processing power4.884 TFLOPS3.994 TFLOPS
ROPs4848
TMUs9696
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB8 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s224.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.5-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD89
+61.8%
55−60
−61.8%
1440p57
+62.9%
35−40
−62.9%
4K36
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.57no data
1440p4.02no data
4K6.36no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 63
+96.9%
30−35
−96.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 86
+139%
35−40
−139%
Elden Ring 95−100
+70.2%
55−60
−70.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 89
+53.4%
55−60
−53.4%
Counter-Strike 2 54
+68.8%
30−35
−68.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+75%
35−40
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 147
+96%
75−80
−96%
Metro Exodus 88
+79.6%
45−50
−79.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 99
+130%
40−45
−130%
Valorant 148
+103%
70−75
−103%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 112
+93.1%
55−60
−93.1%
Counter-Strike 2 49
+53.1%
30−35
−53.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+38.9%
35−40
−38.9%
Dota 2 111
+70.8%
65−70
−70.8%
Elden Ring 102
+78.9%
55−60
−78.9%
Far Cry 5 75
+19%
60−65
−19%
Fortnite 130−140
+41.8%
95−100
−41.8%
Forza Horizon 4 118
+57.3%
75−80
−57.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+64.1%
60−65
−64.1%
Metro Exodus 63
+28.6%
45−50
−28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 232
+85.6%
120−130
−85.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 41
−4.9%
40−45
+4.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 95−100
+71.4%
55−60
−71.4%
Valorant 71
−2.8%
70−75
+2.8%
World of Tanks 270−280
+23.7%
210−220
−23.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 78
+34.5%
55−60
−34.5%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+75%
30−35
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+25%
35−40
−25%
Dota 2 116
+65.7%
70−75
−65.7%
Far Cry 5 119
+88.9%
60−65
−88.9%
Forza Horizon 4 101
+34.7%
75−80
−34.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+37.6%
120−130
−37.6%
Valorant 125
+71.2%
70−75
−71.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 50−55
+78.6%
27−30
−78.6%
Elden Ring 54
+86.2%
27−30
−86.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+78.6%
27−30
−78.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+6.1%
160−170
−6.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
World of Tanks 180−190
+50.4%
120−130
−50.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55
+48.6%
35−40
−48.6%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+73.3%
14−16
−73.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+87.2%
45−50
−87.2%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+71.7%
45−50
−71.7%
Metro Exodus 60
+46.3%
40−45
−46.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+83.3%
24−27
−83.3%
Valorant 81
+76.1%
45−50
−76.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Dota 2 50−55
+67.7%
30−35
−67.7%
Elden Ring 26
+100%
12−14
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+67.7%
30−35
−67.7%
Metro Exodus 19
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+66.7%
50−55
−66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+67.7%
30−35
−67.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27
+50%
18−20
−50%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+100%
5−6
−100%
Dota 2 85
+70%
50−55
−70%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+69.6%
21−24
−69.6%
Fortnite 37
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+73.1%
24−27
−73.1%
Valorant 39
+85.7%
21−24
−85.7%

This is how GTX 1660 Ti Mobile and Arc A530M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 62% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 63% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 71% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is 139% faster.
  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A530M is 5% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is ahead in 59 tests (97%)
  • Arc A530M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.90 18.15
Recency 23 April 2019 1 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 65 Watt

GTX 1660 Ti Mobile has a 59.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Arc A530M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 23.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A530M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile
Intel Arc A530M
Arc A530M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 1599 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 200 votes

Rate Arc A530M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.