AMD FirePro M5100 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712. The AMD part wins this benchmark by 19.6%.

Q: How do these two GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 sits at the 38th percentile, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile. Both are positioned in the lower-middle range of the database.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX is the nearest rival, with an average score of 5721, a delta of -0.1% compared to the Intel part's 5712.

Q: What is the process node difference between these two chips?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses a 14 nm process at Intel.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300?

A: The Intel part uses System Shared memory, with a System Shared type, bus width, and System Dependent bandwidth. The AMD FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 achieves 38.40 GTexel/s, which is higher than the AMD FirePro M5100's 31.00 GTexel/s, despite the AMD part having the higher overall compute score.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro M5100 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Venus chip. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses the Generation 8.0 architecture with the Broadwell GT3e chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel. The Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size in the database.

The two parts differ substantially in their execution resources. The AMD FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 6 raster output units. This configuration gives the Intel part a higher texture rate (38.40 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s) but a much lower pixel rate (4.800 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s).

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD FirePro M5100 runs at a base clock of 725 MHz with a boost of 775 MHz, and its memory runs at 1125 MHz, translating to 4.5 Gbps effective. The Intel part has a lower base clock of 300 MHz but boosts to 800 MHz. The Intel part's memory is System Shared, meaning its bandwidth is System Dependent.

The API support shows a generation gap. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6 for AMD versus 4.4 for Intel. Vulkan support differs: the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports only Vulkan 1.0. The AMD FirePro M5100 is a discrete MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is an integrated IGP using a Ring Bus. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent for AMD and Motherboard Dependent for Intel.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly to the AMD FirePro M5100 as the stronger compute performer. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD part scores 6830 against 5712 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, a 19.6% advantage. The AMD part also holds a higher percentile rank at 38 versus 33.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 does have a lower power envelope at 15 W, whereas the AMD FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed in the database. For applications that depend on raw compute throughput, the AMD part is the choice. For systems where the iGPU is the only option and power draw is a concern, the Intel part presents a viable integrated solution, but the performance gap is significant.

The AMD FirePro M5100 also brings dedicated memory, which generally avoids the bandwidth contention that System Shared memory can face. The Intel part's System Dependent bandwidth is a variable that depends on the host system. Users who need a consistent, dedicated memory pool should favor the AMD part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M5100 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Venus | Broadwell GT3e |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 8.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 775 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 640 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.40 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.00 GTexel/s | 38.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 992.0 GFLOPS | 614.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | Ring Bus |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2013-10-15 | 2014-09-04 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD FirePro M5100 scored 6830, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scored 5712. The delta is 19.6% in favor of the AMD part. This is the only recorded direct comparison, and it gives the AMD part a 1-0 win tally.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The AMD FirePro M5100's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon R7 M370 at 6764 (1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6946 (1.7% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6698 (2% behind), and the AMD Radeon R5 M240 at 6975 (2.1% ahead). This places the AMD part in a tight cluster where a few percentage points separate it from its peers.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX at 5721 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5731 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5604 (1.9% behind). The Intel part is essentially at parity with these competitors, with deltas under 2% in all cases.

The raw FP32 compute figures reinforce the benchmark result. The AMD FirePro M5100 delivers 992.0 GFLOPS, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 delivers 614.4 GFLOPS. The AMD part's shading unit count of 640 versus 384 explains much of this gap, though the Intel part's higher texture rate (38.40 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s) shows it is not uniformly slower in every throughput metric.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins in scenarios that stress raw compute and pixel throughput. Its FP32 output of 992.0 GFLOPS is substantially higher than the Intel part's 614.4 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 12.40 GPixel/s is more than double the Intel part's 4.800 GPixel/s. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth provides a fixed memory performance level that does not depend on the host system. The Vulkan 1.2.170 support and OpenGL 4.6 also give it a more modern API feature set.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins in texture throughput, with 38.40 GTexel/s against 31.00 GTexel/s. Its 15 W TDP is the only power figure listed in the database, making it the more power-efficient option on paper. As an integrated GPU on the Ring Bus, it requires no separate MXM slot and is suitable for compact systems where a discrete graphics module cannot be installed. Its System Shared memory model means it can draw from the host system's memory pool, which may be larger than 2 GB, though bandwidth is System Dependent.

For workloads that are pixel-bound or compute-bound, the AMD FirePro M5100 is the clear choice. For texture-heavy workloads that fit within the integrated memory model, the Intel part has a measurable advantage in texture rate, but its lower compute and pixel rates limit its overall ceiling. The benchmark data shows no recorded test where the Intel part wins, so the use-case split is drawn from the specification differences rather than direct wins.