AMD FirePro M4150 vs Intel HD Graphics P530 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear but narrow picture: the Intel HD Graphics P530 wins the only recorded head-to-head comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel part scores 4549 against 4013 for the AMD FirePro M4150, a 13.4% advantage. This single result means the Intel integrated graphics holds the overall win tally at 1 to 0.

However, the use-case split is not simply about raw performance. The Intel HD Graphics P530 operates as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, making it suited for systems where power efficiency and space are critical. The AMD FirePro M4150, by contrast, is a discrete MXM module, which implies a different thermal and physical profile, though its TDP is not recorded in the database. The data suggests the Intel part is the faster option in the measured compute workload, but the AMD part belongs to a different class of hardware: a mobile workstation-oriented discrete GPU with its own dedicated memory.

The Intel GPU's advantage in OpenCL is notable, but the AMD part counters with a higher texture rate (17.16 GTexel/s vs 16.00 GTexel/s) and a much higher pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s vs 3.000 GPixel/s). These are theoretical peak rates, not application benchmarks, but they hint at where the AMD part could win in geometry-bound or fill-rate-bound scenarios. The recorded data, however, contains no such wins for the AMD part in actual tests.

In terms of percentile ranking, the Intel part sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part rests at the 24th percentile. This close positioning reinforces that these are both low-to-mid-range mobile graphics solutions, separated by a relatively modest performance gap in the measured test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and process technologies. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is built on the Skylake GT2 chip using Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm+ process at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 123 mm². The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with a die size of 77 mm² and 950 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm².

The Intel part integrates 192 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and only 3 raster output units. Its base clock is 350 MHz with a boost clock of 1000 MHz. Memory is system-shared, meaning the GPU uses the host system's RAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent". The AMD part has a significantly different compute configuration: 384 shading units (double the Intel count), 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. It uses 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part's memory clock is listed as 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed.

The FP32 compute rates reflect the architectural differences. The Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, while the AMD part reaches 549.1 GFLOPS, a 43% higher theoretical single-precision throughput. The Intel part also lists an FP16 rate of 768.0 GFLOPS (at 2:1 ratio), while the AMD part has no recorded FP16 figure. The Intel GPU's pixel rate is 3.000 GPixel/s and texture rate is 16.00 GTexel/s, whereas the AMD GPU's pixel rate is 5.720 GPixel/s and texture rate is 17.16 GTexel/s.

API support differs as well. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel part's higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_1) could matter for certain modern titles, while the AMD part's Vulkan version is slightly older.

The bus interface also separates them: the Intel GPU uses a Ring Bus (typical for integrated graphics), while the AMD GPU uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The AMD part is a mobile workstation-oriented product (FirePro Mobile series), while the Intel part is a mainstream integrated solution.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4549 versus 4013 for the AMD FirePro M4150, a 13.4% lead in that specific benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro M4150 have any theoretical advantages over the Intel part?

A: Yes. The AMD part has a higher pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s vs 3.000 GPixel/s), a higher texture rate (17.16 GTexel/s vs 16.00 GTexel/s), and nearly double the FP32 throughput (549.1 GFLOPS vs 384.0 GFLOPS).

Q: What type of memory does each GPU use?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The Intel part sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part is at the 24th percentile. This indicates they are closely matched in the overall distribution.

Q: What are the process nodes for these GPUs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 is built on a 14 nm+ process, while the AMD FirePro M4150 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Process Node: Intel is 14 nm+, AMD is 28 nm.
• Foundry: Intel uses its own foundry, AMD uses TSMC.
• Die Size: Intel is 123 mm², AMD is 77 mm².
• Transistors: AMD has 950 million (Intel's figure is not recorded), AMD's density is 12.3M per mm².
• Shading Units: Intel has 192, AMD has 384.
• Texture Mapping Units: Intel has 16, AMD has 24.
• Raster Output Units: Intel has 3, AMD has 8.
• Base Clock: Intel is 350 MHz, AMD has no recorded base clock.
• Boost Clock: Intel is 1000 MHz, AMD has no recorded boost clock.
• Memory Size: Intel is system shared, AMD is 1024 MB.
• Memory Type: Intel is system shared, AMD is GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: Intel is system shared, AMD is 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel is system dependent, AMD is 64.00 GB/s.
• Memory Clock: Intel has no dedicated memory clock, AMD is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Pixel Rate: Intel is 3.000 GPixel/s, AMD is 5.720 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Intel is 16.00 GTexel/s, AMD is 17.16 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Intel is 384.0 GFLOPS, AMD is 549.1 GFLOPS.
• FP16: Intel is 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), AMD is not recorded.
• TDP: Intel is 15 W, AMD is not recorded.
• Slot Width: Intel is IGP, AMD is MXM Module.
• Bus Interface: Intel is Ring Bus, AMD is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• DirectX: Intel is 12 (12_1), AMD is 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan: Intel is 1.3, AMD is 1.2.170.
• Release Date: Intel is 2015-08-31, AMD is 2013-10-15.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4549, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The delta is 13.4% in favor of the Intel part. This is the only recorded head-to-head result, so it carries the full weight of the win tally.

Interpreting this score requires context from their nearest rivals. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 4560, which places it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% below the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577). It is 1.2% above the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505) and 1.3% below the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621). This suggests the Intel GPU performs in a tight cluster around the 4500-4600 mark, despite being an integrated solution.

The AMD FirePro M4150's average benchmark score is 4013. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033, delta -0.5%), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, delta 0.9%), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, delta 1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, delta 1.4%). The AMD part sits at the lower end of this group, with all rivals within a 1.4% band.

The 13.4% gap between the two compared GPUs is therefore significant in real terms, but it is also a gap that could be explained by their different architectures. The Intel part's integrated nature with system-shared memory appears to perform better in the OpenCL workload than the AMD discrete part with dedicated GDDR5, at least in this specific test. The AMD part's higher theoretical FP32 and pixel rates do not translate into a win in the recorded benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel HD Graphics P530 as the stronger performer in the only measured test. Its 13.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is a clear margin, and its higher percentile ranking (26th vs 24th) reinforces this position. For users whose primary workload is OpenCL compute, the Intel part is the safer choice based on recorded results.

However, the AMD FirePro M4150 should not be dismissed entirely. Its dedicated GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, higher pixel rate, and higher texture rate suggest it could excel in applications that stress fill-rate or memory bandwidth, even though those scenarios do not appear in the head-to-head data. The AMD part also has double the shading units and nearly 43% more FP32 throughput, which could matter in workloads that are not captured by the single OpenCL test.

The choice between these two depends on the system context. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, designed for low-power integrated builds. The AMD FirePro M4150 is a discrete MXM module, intended for mobile workstations where a replaceable GPU is required. If the system must rely on integrated graphics, the Intel part is the faster option in the measured metric. If a discrete module is needed for a workstation upgrade path, the AMD part offers theoretical advantages in rasterization rates, but the recorded benchmark does not show it winning any test.

Given that the Intel part wins the only head-to-head benchmark and holds a higher percentile rank, the database favors it for general compute performance. The AMD part remains a viable alternative for systems requiring dedicated memory and higher theoretical fill rates, but its lack of a benchmark win leaves it at a disadvantage in this comparison. The verdict is straightforward: the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the better choice based on measured data, while the AMD FirePro M4150 offers architectural features that may be preferable in specific, unmeasured use cases.