OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon 530 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

AMD Radeon 530 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

4.8/10

Overall score

Score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

40%

3.3

Technical score

25%

3.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 97% of graphics cards
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
3.3

Technical score

Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

44%

1.4

Performance

24%

1.6

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 99%
3.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

3.3

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, with a printed score. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 99%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £95
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon 530

Based on 1 · 3

Reviewers agree it fits well in laptops and handles light gaming decently, with few complaints overall.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon 530

Technical score
Technical score
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

44%

1.4

Performance

24%

1.6

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.2

Connectivity

3.3
Reviews score
3.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
443 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 443 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 99.9% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
1,036 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 1,036 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 98.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
438 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 438 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 99.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
0.8 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 0.8 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 97.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
28.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 28.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
4,500 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 4,500 MHz, which is slower than that of 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
5
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 5 displays, which is more than 97.3% of graphics cards and equal to 1.4% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
?
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
N/A
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
50 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
50 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
50 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 50 W, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
50 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon 530 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 1 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (5 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    5 vs 4
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 5.47x cheaper
    AMD Radeon 530 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£95 vs £520).
    £95 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 83.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (2 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    2 W vs 12 W
  • 2 more monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports more monitors per output type than the average graphics card (5 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    5 vs 3
  • 5.47x cheaper
    AMD Radeon 530 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£95 vs £520).
    £95 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 57.5% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (125 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    125 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (5 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    5 vs 4
  • 2 more monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports more monitors per output type than the average graphics card (5 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    5 vs 3
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 83.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (2 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    2 W vs 12 W
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 59.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,024 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,024 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 54.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

    3.3

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, with a printed score. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.3 vs 7.2
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 62% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (730 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    730 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 54.2% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models

    3.3

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, with a printed score. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.3 vs 7.2
  • 16.3% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon 530 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.37 vs 7.4).
    6.37 vs 7.41
  • 59.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,024 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,024 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 62% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (730 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    730 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 160 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (24 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    24 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 94.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (21.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    21.38 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 94.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (8.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    8.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 56 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (8 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    8 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 96.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    0.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 95.4% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (1,036 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    1,036 points vs 22,638 points
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    April 2017
    2017 vs 2023
  • 97% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (443 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    443 points vs 14,779 points
  • 96.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (438 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    438 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 97.4% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.8 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.78 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 91.7% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.04 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,968 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (384 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    384 vs 4,352
  • 99.7% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (0.8 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    0.8 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 93.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (28.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    28.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 76.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (4,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    4,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 95.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (930 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    930 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • No 3D output
    This graphics card does not support 3D output, the average graphics card does.
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 10 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (105 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    105 °C vs 95 °C
  • 30 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (97 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    97 °C vs 67 °C
  • 8 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (45 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    45 °C vs 37 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
VerTechHD
≈ estimated
28/04/2019
Benchmark · game FPS tests on a laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon 530 is not the best value, but it is still quite good and plays most games at 720p.
7.0
VerTechHD
≈ estimated
15/06/2018
Benchmark · game FPS tests on a laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon 530 is not the best value, but it is still quite good and should handle most mid-range games.
7.0
VerTechHD
≈ estimated
04/11/2017
Short gaming test · FPS results on a laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon 530 can play older games and some newer ones if you lower the settings.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

3.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
✓ explicit
16/03/2020
Lab test · Budget laptop graphics
Verdict
The AMD Radeon 530 is a 2015 laptop chip that only matches Intel's built-in graphics and isn't suited to modern games.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon 530

  • Reliable for basic productivity tasks like office work and web browsing
  • Capable of running older or less demanding games (e.g., FIFA 17, Overwatch) at low to medium settings
  • Offers a dedicated graphics solution for budget-friendly laptops compared to some older integrated chips
  • Silent operation and low heat production in many laptop configurations
  • Good value for users on a strict budget who do not require high-end performance

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon 530

  • Underpowered for modern AAA titles or graphically intensive games
  • Often performs similarly to modern integrated graphics solutions (e.g., Intel UHD or Ryzen Vega iGPUs)
  • Limited by a 64-bit memory bus, which significantly bottlenecks higher resolutions like 1080p
  • Based on older GCN architecture rather than more modern Polaris or RDNA chips
  • Versions with DDR3 memory are notably slower than those equipped with GDDR5
  • Not suitable for professional 3D rendering or complex CAD work

Verdict

The AMD Radeon 530 is an entry-level mobile graphics card launched in 2017, built on a 28 nm process and based on the GCN 3.0 microarchitecture. It typically features 320 to 384 shading units, a base clock of 730 MHz with a boost up to 1,024 MHz, and is paired with up to 4 GB of either DDR3 or GDDR5 memory over a 64-bit interface. Its primary advantages include low power consumption (TDP of approximately 50W) and providing a dedicated alternative to integrated graphics for basic multimedia tasks and casual 720p gaming in older titles. However, it faces significant drawbacks, including outdated performance that struggles with modern AAA games, a reliance on older architecture that AMD ceased supporting in 2021, and common reports of driver instability or system freezing in newer operating systems.

Compare AMD Radeon 530 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon 530 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found