Radeon HD 6530M vs RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 with Radeon HD 6530M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 11 outperforms HD 6530M by a whopping 326% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 617 | 1043 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.82 | 3.41 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Raven | Capilano |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (6 years ago) | 26 November 2010 (14 years ago) |
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 cores | 704 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1251 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.04 | 9.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.761 TFLOPS | 0.36 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 44 | 20 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | MXM-II |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 type | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 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 Connectors | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
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 HD | 27
+350%
| 6−7
−350%
|
| 1440p | 5
+400%
| 1−2
−400%
|
| 4K | 12
+500%
| 2−3
−500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 17
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 54
+286%
|
14−16
−286%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| World of Tanks | 85−90
+214%
|
27−30
−214%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+229%
|
14−16
−229%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and HD 6530M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 11 is 350% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 11 is 400% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 11 is 500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 11 is 4100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 11 is ahead in 39 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.37 | 1.26 |
| Recency | 10 May 2018 | 26 November 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 26 Watt |
RX Vega 11 has a 326.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6530M, on the other hand, has 34.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 11 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6530M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 11 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6530M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
