AMD FirePro M4000 vs Intel UHD Graphics P750 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisive: the Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins the sole recorded head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL workload, with a score of 6,554 against 5,537 for the AMD FirePro M4000. That is an 18.4% advantage for the Intel part, a substantial margin in the context of these two integrated and mobile-class graphics solutions.

Looking at the database's nearest rival comparisons, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 sits in a tight competitive band. Its 6,554 score is only 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6,581), and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6,612). Conversely, it edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513) by 0.6% and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6,493) by 0.9%. This places the Intel part within a narrow performance cluster among older discrete mobile GPUs, with no rival in its immediate vicinity exceeding a 1.0% delta in either direction.

The AMD FirePro M4000, with its 5,537 score, occupies a lower performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5,604), which leads by 1.2%, while the AMD part itself leads the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508) by 0.5%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501) by 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483) by 1.0%. The data shows the FirePro M4000 is similarly clustered, but at a baseline roughly 1,000 points lower on this specific OpenCL test.

The single head-to-head result is unambiguous: the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the faster part in this workload by a clear double-digit percentage. The percentile rankings reinforce this, with the Intel solution at the 38th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 32nd percentile for the AMD FirePro M4000. While both are low-to-mid-range performers by modern standards, the recorded measurements consistently favor the Intel chip.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is built on the Generation 12.1 architecture, using the Rocket Lake chip, and is fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process node. The AMD FirePro M4000, by contrast, uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Chelsea chip, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, while the AMD part is a discrete mobile module (MXM) rated at 33 W.

The transistor and die data also diverge sharply. The AMD FirePro M4000 packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no listed transistor count or die size in the database, but its 14 nm+++ process is a more mature refinement of Intel's 14 nm node compared to the older 28 nm planar process used by TSMC for the AMD chip.

Core configurations tell a story of different priorities. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 features 256 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The AMD FirePro M4000 doubles the shading unit count to 512, but halves the TMUs to 32 and the ROPs to 16. This architectural split explains the performance characteristics: the Intel part achieves a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s, while the AMD part manages only 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s respectively. The Intel part's higher ROP and TMU counts give it a clear throughput advantage in rasterization and texture work.

Compute output is closer, with the Intel UHD Graphics P750 delivering 665.6 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the AMD FirePro M4000. The Intel part also lists FP16 support at 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the AMD part has no recorded FP16 figure. Memory architecture differs completely: the Intel GPU uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro M4000 has a dedicated 1,024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD's memory clock is listed as 1,000 MHz, or 4 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins the only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 18.4%. Its architecture suggests it excels in tasks that depend on pixel and texture throughput, given its 41.60 GPixel/s and 83.20 GTexel/s rates. These figures are roughly four times higher than the AMD FirePro M4000's 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, indicating the Intel part is better suited for workloads that stress fill-rate, such as lower-resolution gaming with high effects, basic image processing, or UI compositing. The Intel GPU also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are newer API versions than the AMD part's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it the more future-proof choice for modern software titles that leverage these APIs.

The AMD FirePro M4000, despite losing the head-to-head, has strengths in specific areas. Its FP32 compute output of 691.2 GFLOPS slightly exceeds the Intel part's 665.6 GFLOPS, a 3.8% advantage. This suggests the AMD GPU may hold a marginal edge in pure compute workloads that are not heavily dependent on texture or pixel fill rates, such as certain scientific or financial calculations that run on OpenCL. The dedicated 64.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth, while modest by today's standards, is also a fixed resource that does not contend with the CPU for system memory, which can be an advantage in sustained compute tasks where the Intel part's system-shared bandwidth may become a bottleneck. However, the database records no benchmark win for the AMD part, so these are speculative advantages based on architectural data rather than measured performance.

Specification Differences

Several key specification fields differ between the two GPUs, and these differences largely explain the performance gap.

• Process Node: Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses 14 nm+++, AMD FirePro M4000 uses 28 nm.
• Transistors: AMD FirePro M4000 has 1,500 million, Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no listed count.
• Die Size: AMD FirePro M4000 is 123 mm², Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no listed size.
• Transistor Density: AMD FirePro M4000 is 12.2M / mm², Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no listed density.
• Base Clock: Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a base clock of 350 MHz, AMD FirePro M4000 has no listed base clock.
• Boost Clock: Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a boost clock of 1,300 MHz, AMD FirePro M4000 has no listed boost clock.
• Memory Size: Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses system shared memory, AMD FirePro M4000 has 1,024 MB.
• Memory Type: Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses system shared, AMD FirePro M4000 uses GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses system shared, AMD FirePro M4000 has 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is system dependent, AMD FirePro M4000 is 64.00 GB/s.
• Shading Units: Intel UHD Graphics P750 has 256, AMD FirePro M4000 has 512.
• TMUs: Intel UHD Graphics P750 has 64, AMD FirePro M4000 has 32.
• ROPs: Intel UHD Graphics P750 has 32, AMD FirePro M4000 has 16.
• Pixel Rate: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 41.60 GPixel/s, AMD FirePro M4000 is 10.80 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 83.20 GTexel/s, AMD FirePro M4000 is 21.60 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 665.6 GFLOPS, AMD FirePro M4000 is 691.2 GFLOPS.
• FP16: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 1,331.2 GFLOPS, AMD FirePro M4000 has no listed value.
• TDP: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 15 W, AMD FirePro M4000 is 33 W.
• Slot Width: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is IGP, AMD FirePro M4000 is MXM Module.
• Bus Interface: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is Ring Bus, AMD FirePro M4000 is MXM-A (3.0).
• Power Connectors: Intel UHD Graphics P750 has none listed, AMD FirePro M4000 has "None".
• Display Outputs: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is motherboard dependent, AMD FirePro M4000 is portable device dependent.
• DirectX Support: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 12 (12_1), AMD FirePro M4000 is 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan Support: Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 1.4, AMD FirePro M4000 is 1.2.170.
• Release Date: AMD FirePro M4000 is 2012-06-26, Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no listed date.
• Predecessor/Successor: AMD FirePro M4000 lists predecessor "FirePro Mobility" and successor "Radeon Pro Mobile", Intel UHD Graphics P750 lists none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster according to the benchmark data?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6,554 against 5,537 for the AMD FirePro M4000, an 18.4% lead.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is within 0.9% of four rival GPUs, with scores ranging from 6,493 to 6,612. The AMD FirePro M4000 is within 1.2% of four rivals, with scores ranging from 5,483 to 5,604.

Q: What is the main architectural difference between the two?

A: The Intel part uses the Generation 12.1 architecture on a 14 nm+++ process with 256 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD part uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s, both roughly four times higher than the AMD FirePro M4000's 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro M4000 have any compute advantage?

A: Yes, its FP32 output is 691.2 GFLOPS, slightly higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P750's 665.6 GFLOPS, but the Intel part has a recorded FP16 capability of 1,331.2 GFLOPS that the AMD part lacks.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is rated at 15 W, while the AMD FirePro M4000 is rated at 33 W, making the Intel part the more power-efficient choice for mobile or compact systems.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the stronger GPU for general graphics workloads. Its 18.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with higher pixel and texture rates, makes it the better choice for tasks that involve rendering, compositing, or any workload that benefits from high fill rates. The Intel part also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which gives it a compatibility edge for modern software. Its lower 15 W TDP also makes it far more appropriate for thin-and-light laptops or embedded systems where power draw is critical.

The AMD FirePro M4000 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrow. The slight FP32 compute lead (691.2 GFLOPS versus 665.6 GFLOPS) and the dedicated 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 bandwidth could make it marginally better for specific compute-heavy OpenCL tasks that do not stress texture or pixel throughput. However, the database records no benchmark win for the AMD part, and its 33 W TDP is more than double the Intel part's, making it a less efficient choice. Its older GCN 1.0 architecture and lower API support (Vulkan 1.2.170) further limit its relevance.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the data points to the Intel UHD Graphics P750 in almost every scenario. It wins the only measured benchmark, has superior fill rates, supports newer APIs, and draws less power. The AMD FirePro M4000 only makes sense in the rare case where a specific compute workload can exploit its slightly higher FP32 throughput and fixed memory bandwidth, and even then the margin is small. The verdict is straightforward: the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the better all-round GPU, while the AMD FirePro M4000 is a niche part for legacy compute tasks.