Quadro K6000 vs Arc A530M
Quadro K6000
Popular choices:
Arc A530M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K6000 is positioned at rank 319 and the Arc A530M is on rank 243, so the Arc A530M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K6000
Performance Per Dollar Arc A530M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc A530M is significantly newer (2023 vs 2013). The Arc A530M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Arc A530M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K6000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+200%) | 🎮 High Capacity (4 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (265mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Arc A530M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K6000 and Arc A530M
Quadro K6000
The Quadro K6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 797 MHz to 902 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,993 points. Launch price was $5,265.
Arc A530M
The Arc A530M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in August 1 2023. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 1300 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,013 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K6000 scores 7,993 and the Arc A530M reaches 8,013 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K6000 is built on Kepler while the Arc A530M uses Generation 12.7, both on 28 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 2,880 (Quadro K6000) vs 1,536 (Arc A530M). Raw compute: 5.196 TFLOPS (Quadro K6000) vs 3.994 TFLOPS (Arc A530M). Boost clocks: 902 MHz vs 1300 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,993 | 8,013 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 2880+88% | 1536 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.196 TFLOPS+30% | 3.994 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 1300 MHz+44% |
| ROPs | 48 | 48 |
| TMUs | 240+150% | 96 |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 8 MB+433% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K6000 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the Arc A530M has 4 GB. The Quadro K6000 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 211 GB/s (Quadro K6000) vs 224 GB/s (Arc A530M) — a 6.2% advantage for the Arc A530M. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Quadro K6000) vs 8 MB (Arc A530M) — the Arc A530M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+200% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 224 GB/s+6% |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 8 MB+433% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (Quadro K6000) vs 12.2 (Arc A530M). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0 | 12.2+11% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1.0 (Quadro K6000) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc A530M). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (Quadro K6000) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (Arc A530M).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1.0 | Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K6000 draws 225W versus the Arc A530M's 65W — a 110.3% difference. The Arc A530M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K6000) vs 500W (Arc A530M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 265mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 65W-71% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 265mm | 0mm |
| Height | 110mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 35.5 | 123.3+247% |
Value Analysis
The Arc A530M is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Arc A530M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5265 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | — |
| Codename | GK110B | DG2-256 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | August 1 2023 |
| Ranking | #318 | #317 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K6000 and Arc A530M
