AMD FirePro M4150 vs Intel HD Graphics 530 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and Intel HD Graphics 530 represent two very different approaches to integrated and mobile graphics. The FirePro M4150 is a discrete mobile workstation part built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, while the HD Graphics 530 is Intel’s integrated graphics solution found in Skylake processors. The recorded data shows a clear, if narrow, performance advantage for the AMD part in the one benchmark where both were measured directly.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro M4150 scored 4013 points, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 scored 3550 points. The delta is 13%, meaning the AMD part is 13% faster in this specific workload. This is not a marginal difference, but it is also not a dominant one. A 13% lead in OpenCL compute suggests the FirePro M4150 holds a meaningful advantage in general-purpose GPU tasks, but the Intel part is not far behind.

To put the FirePro’s score in context, its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033 points, 0.5% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977 points, 0.9% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964 points, 1.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957 points, 1.4% behind). This places the FirePro M4150 in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile and older desktop parts. Its 4013 score is effectively on par with the GT 755M, and it sits just above the HD 6850 X2 and Quadro K2000. The 13% lead over the HD Graphics 530 is larger than the gaps between the FirePro and any of its four closest rivals, which are all within 1.4% of its score.

The Intel HD Graphics 530, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3332 across all its recorded tests, which includes Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan results. Its OpenCL score of 3550 is its second-best result, behind its Metal score of 5025 and ahead of its Vulkan score of 1422. The average of 3332 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316 points, 0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287 points, 1.4% behind), the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389 points, 1.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431 points, 2.9% ahead). The Intel part’s nearest rivals are all within 2.9% of its average, indicating that its performance level is consistent with older entry-level discrete GPUs.

Looking only at the OpenCL numbers, the FirePro M4150 is 13% faster than the HD Graphics 530. However, the Intel part has additional benchmark data that the AMD part lacks. For instance, the HD Graphics 530 scores 5025 in Geekbench Metal, which is significantly higher than its OpenCL result. The database does not include a Metal score for the FirePro M4150, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible. Similarly, the HD Graphics 530 has a Vulkan score of 1422, but no Vulkan result is recorded for the AMD part. The absence of these data points means the head-to-head comparison is limited to OpenCL, where the AMD part wins.

The percentile rankings also differ. The FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the HD Graphics 530 sits at the 20th percentile. This 4-percentage-point gap reinforces the OpenCL result, but it also shows that both parts are in the lower half of all recorded GPUs. Neither is a high-performance part by modern standards, but the AMD part is positioned slightly higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 is faster, scoring 4013 points compared to the Intel HD Graphics 530’s 3550 points, a 13% advantage.

Q: How does the Intel HD Graphics 530 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 3332 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M, 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 920M, 1.7% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600, and 2.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740.

Q: What is the AMD FirePro M4150’s closest rival in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, with an average score of 4033, is 0.5% ahead of the FirePro’s 4013. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is 0.9% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is 1.2% behind.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 530 have any benchmark scores higher than its OpenCL result?

A: Yes, its Geekbench Metal score is 5025, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 3550. Its Vulkan score is 1422, which is lower.

Q: How do the percentile rankings of the two GPUs compare?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 is at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 is at the 20th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has an average score of 4013, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 has an average score of 3332. The AMD part is 20.4% higher on average.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the faster GPU in OpenCL compute tasks. Its 4013 score beats the Intel HD Graphics 530’s 3550 by 13%, and its average benchmark score of 4013 is 20.4% higher than the Intel part’s 3332. For anyone running OpenCL workloads, the FirePro M4150 is the clear choice.

However, the Intel HD Graphics 530 has a notable advantage in one area: its Metal score of 5025 is the highest recorded score for either part in any test. The database does not include a Metal result for the FirePro M4150, so it is impossible to say whether the AMD part would match or exceed that number. If Metal performance is a priority, the Intel part has demonstrated capability in that API, while the AMD part has no recorded data.

The FirePro M4150 also sits higher in the overall percentile ranking, at 24th versus 20th. This suggests that, across all GPUs in the database, the AMD part performs better than the Intel part relative to the full field. The FirePro’s nearest rivals are all within 1.4% of its score, while the Intel part’s rivals are within 2.9% of its average, indicating that the AMD part is in a slightly more competitive position.

For users who need a discrete mobile GPU with a dedicated memory interface, the FirePro M4150 is the better choice. Its 13% lead in OpenCL and higher average score make it the stronger performer in the measured benchmarks. For users who prioritize Metal performance or who need an integrated solution with no additional hardware, the Intel HD Graphics 530 has a recorded Metal score that the AMD part cannot match, and its OpenCL score is not far behind.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every hardware specification recorded in the database. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 uses a 14 nm+ process from Intel. The AMD chip, codenamed Opal, is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, whereas the Intel chip, Skylake GT2, uses Generation 9.0 architecture.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses System Shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as System Shared and System Dependent respectively. This means the Intel part relies on the host system’s memory, while the AMD part has its own dedicated pool.

The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The Intel HD Graphics 530 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. The AMD part has twice the shading units and more than double the ROPs, while both have the same number of TMUs.

Clock speeds also differ. The FirePro M4150’s memory runs at 1000 MHz, which translates to 4 Gbps effective. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, with no separate memory clock because memory is system shared.

The pixel rate and texture rate reflect these differences. The FirePro M4150 produces 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 produces 2.850 GPixel/s and 22.80 GTexel/s. The AMD part has a higher pixel rate, but the Intel part has a higher texture rate.

The FirePro M4150’s FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS, while the Intel HD Graphics 530’s FP32 is 364.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part also has FP16 performance of 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1), while the AMD part has no recorded FP16 figure.

The TDP for the Intel HD Graphics 530 is 15 W, while the FirePro M4150 has no recorded TDP. The FirePro uses an MXM Module slot width, whereas the Intel part is an IGP. The FirePro’s bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus.

The display outputs also differ: the FirePro is listed as Portable Device Dependent, while the Intel part is Motherboard Dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD FirePro M4150 is based on GCN 1.0, a discrete GPU architecture designed for compute and workstation tasks. It has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 530 is based on Generation 9.0, Intel’s integrated graphics architecture. Its die size is listed as 123 mm², but no transistor count is recorded, so a density comparison is not possible.

The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, which is double the Intel part’s 192. This is a major difference in compute capability. The ROP count is also very different: 8 for the AMD part versus 3 for the Intel part. This explains why the FirePro has a significantly higher pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s versus 2.850 GPixel/s). However, the Intel part has a higher texture rate (22.80 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), despite having the same number of TMUs (24 each). This is likely due to the higher boost clock on the Intel part (950 MHz versus the FirePro’s unspecified core clock; the FirePro’s texture rate implies a clock of approximately 715 MHz based on its 24 TMUs and 17.16 GTexel/s).

The memory architecture is the most fundamental difference. The FirePro M4150 has dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, which provides predictable bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses system shared memory, meaning its bandwidth depends entirely on the host system’s memory configuration. The database lists this as System Dependent, which introduces variability that the discrete part does not have.

The API support differs as well. The FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel HD Graphics 530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part has a higher DirectX version and a newer Vulkan version, which may matter for compatibility with newer software.

The FP16 capability is another distinguishing feature. The Intel HD Graphics 530 has FP16 performance of 729.6 GFLOPS, while the FirePro M4150 has no recorded FP16 figure. The Intel part’s FP16 is exactly double its FP32 rate, indicating a 2:1 ratio. This suggests the Intel architecture can handle half-precision workloads efficiently, while the AMD part’s FP16 capability is not documented.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is 50.7% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 530’s 364.8 GFLOPS. This translates directly to its 13% lead in OpenCL benchmarks. The FirePro also wins in pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s versus 2.850 GPixel/s) due to its higher ROP count. For tasks that require heavy fragment processing or general-purpose compute, the AMD part is clearly superior.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 wins in texture throughput. Its 22.80 GTexel/s is 32.9% higher than the FirePro’s 17.16 GTexel/s, despite having the same number of TMUs. This is likely due to its higher clock speed. For texture-bound workloads, such as certain types of image processing, the Intel part has an advantage.

The Intel part also wins in API support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, both newer than the FirePro’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. For users running applications that require these newer API versions, the Intel part is the only option. The Intel part also has a recorded Metal score of 5025, which is the highest single score for either GPU in the database. The FirePro has no Metal data, so the Intel part is the only choice for Metal-specific workloads.

In terms of efficiency, the Intel HD Graphics 530 has a recorded TDP of 15 W, while the FirePro M4150 has no TDP listed. The Intel part is an IGP, meaning it consumes no additional power beyond the processor package. The FirePro is an MXM Module, which requires a dedicated slot and likely draws more power, though the database does not provide a figure.

For users who need a discrete GPU with dedicated memory, the FirePro M4150 is the only choice. Its 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are fixed and predictable, unlike the Intel part’s system shared memory. For users who need an integrated solution with no additional hardware, the Intel HD Graphics 530 is the only choice.

The production status and release dates also differ. The FirePro M4150 was released on October 15, 2013, and is end-of-life. The Intel HD Graphics 530 was released on August 31, 2015, and is also end-of-life. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile, while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.