Intel
Intel Arc A530M vs Radeon R9 285
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
R9 285
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Intel Arc A530M and R9 285 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Intel Arc A530M outperforms R9 285 by ~12% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+12%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Intel Arc A530M (~4%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Intel Arc A530M
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Lower stated power consumption
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · XeSS
Reasons to consider R9 285
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
Intel
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3834
10060
57100
6856
Graphics card ranking
Positions 56–61of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Intel Arc A530M
171 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
38Better
34
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
34Better
31
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
31Better
28
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
60
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
48Better
46
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Release date
Upscaling
HDMI
DisplayPort
Max resolution
Max monitors
USB Type-C
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Architecture
Memory type
Compute API
Launch price—
Shader units / coresBetter
Interface
Recommended PSU
Length
Thickness
Die sizeBetter
Memory cacheBetter
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Transistor countBetter
Device class
Power connector
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Intel Arc A530M and R9 285 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
Intel Arc A530MR9 285
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
182 FPS
175 FPS
1080p Ultra
128 FPS
120 FPS
1440p Ultra
85 FPS
65 FPS
4K Ultra
25 FPS
24 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Intel Arc A530M182 FPSR9 285175 FPSIntel Arc A530M128 FPSR9 285120 FPSIntel Arc A530M85 FPSR9 28565 FPSIntel Arc A530M25 FPSR9 28524 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Intel Arc A530M117 FPSR9 285113 FPSIntel Arc A530M101 FPSR9 28595 FPSIntel Arc A530M62 FPSR9 28547 FPSIntel Arc A530M17 FPSR9 28516 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Intel Arc A530M148 FPSR9 285142 FPSIntel Arc A530M96 FPSR9 28590 FPSIntel Arc A530M77 FPSR9 28558 FPSIntel Arc A530M37 FPSR9 28535 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyIntel Arc A530M96 FPSR9 28592 FPSIntel Arc A530M80 FPSR9 28575 FPSIntel Arc A530M55 FPSR9 28542 FPSIntel Arc A530M17 FPSR9 28516 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100383411%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100433715%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100464014%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100685619%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001006050%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100524417%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100504315%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100464014%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100554618%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100474016%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.212.0
Vulkan1.41.2
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingXeSSNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0OpenCL 2.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureXe HPG (Alchemist)GCN 3.0
Process node6 nmBetter28 nm
Release date20232014
Device classMobileDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count11500 millionBetter5000 million
Die size269 mm²Better366 mm²
Shader units / cores15361792Better
Base clock900 MHz918 MHzBetter
Boost clock1300 MHzBetter918 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 3x16
LengthOEM dependent221 mm
ThicknessIGPDual-slot
Recommended PSUOEM dependent450 W
Power connectorIntegrated laptop power6+6 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIOEM dependentHDMI 1.4a
DisplayPortOEM dependentDisplayPort 1.2
USB Type-COEM dependentNo
Max monitorsOEM dependent4
Max resolutionDepends on host system4096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM8 GB GDDR6Better2 GB GDDR5
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR5
Memory bus128 bit256 bitBetter
TFLOPS3.994Better3.29
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 69
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (4)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Intel Arc A530M or R9 285?+
Intel Arc A530M has the higher overall gaming score, while R9 285 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Intel Arc A530M is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Intel Arc A530M is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Intel Arc A530M offers more overall performance, while Intel Arc A530M offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Intel Arc A530M is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
R9 285 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Intel Arc A530M leads in combined 1440p performance. Intel Arc A530M can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Intel Arc A530M is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Intel Arc A530M is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Intel Arc A530M is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Intel Arc A530M if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.