AMD FirePro W4100 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

The benchmark data places the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 and AMD FirePro W4100 in nearly the same performance tier, but the Intel solution edges out the AMD card in the only directly comparable test. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins the sole head-to-head benchmark with a 4.1% margin, yet the AMD FirePro W4100 counters with higher peak scores in a different API test, making the choice dependent on workload and platform constraints.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are remarkably close. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712, while the AMD FirePro W4100 trails at 5478, yielding a 4.1% victory for Intel. This margin is modest but consistent with the broader competitive landscape: Intel’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, scores 5721 (a 0.1% difference), while AMD’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, scores 5986 (a 0% difference from the FirePro’s average). The data indicates that both GPUs are clustered within a narrow performance band, and the 4.1% delta is unlikely to be decisive in real-world tasks.

However, the AMD FirePro W4100 shows a different strength in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 6496. This is substantially higher than its own OpenCL score of 5478 and represents a 18.6% improvement. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has no Vulkan score in the data, meaning the FirePro’s Vulkan capability is a clear differentiator for applications that leverage this modern API. Meanwhile, the Intel part’s average benchmark score of 5712 is slightly higher than AMD’s average of 5987 only when including the Vulkan result — the AMD average sits at 5987, which is 4.8% above Intel’s 5712. This discrepancy highlights that the FirePro’s overall average is buoyed by its Vulkan performance, while the Intel part relies solely on OpenCL.

Neither GPU ranks highly in the global percentile standings. The AMD FirePro W4100 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is at the 33rd percentile. This near-identical positioning confirms that both are entry-level or legacy parts by modern standards. The AMD card’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (delta 0%), Quadro K4000 (0.1% ahead), and even the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (0.2% behind), while Intel’s rivals are the GeForce GTX 670MX (0.1% behind) and GTX 550 Ti (0.3% behind). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, reinforcing that the two GPUs are effectively interchangeable in raw compute terms.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5987, compared to 5712 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. This is a 4.8% advantage for AMD, driven entirely by its Vulkan score of 6496, which the Intel part lacks.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins with a score of 5712 against the AMD FirePro W4100’s 5478. This represents a 4.1% victory for Intel, the only direct head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses system shared memory, with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host system’s RAM.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API and to what version?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and scores 6496 in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 supports only Vulkan 1.0 and has no Vulkan benchmark score in the data.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W and requires a 250 W suggested power supply, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a TDP of 15 W and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no separate power supply requirement.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 achieves a pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.16 GTexel/s. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a lower pixel rate of 4.800 GPixel/s but a higher texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is a Broadwell GT3e chip using Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. Intel’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data, but the smaller process node suggests a different design philosophy focused on integration.

The core configurations differ significantly. The AMD part has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, with a pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.16 GTexel/s. The Intel part has fewer shading units at 384, but more texture units at 48 and only 6 ROPs, yielding a lower pixel rate of 4.800 GPixel/s but a higher texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s. This suggests Intel’s design prioritizes texture-heavy workloads, while AMD’s favors pixel fill rates. In terms of floating-point performance, the AMD FirePro W4100 delivers 645.1 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, slightly ahead of Intel’s 614.4 GFLOPS — a 5.0% difference.

Memory architecture is another critical divergence. The AMD FirePro W4100 has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 relies on system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance is contingent on the host platform’s memory speed and configuration. This makes the AMD card more predictable in memory-bound workloads, while Intel’s solution is more flexible but variable.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL, but AMD offers OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while Intel only provides OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD FirePro also has a wider display output configuration with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, whereas Intel’s outputs are motherboard dependent.

The Verdict

The data does not support a clear overall winner; instead, the choice hinges on specific use cases and platform requirements. For raw OpenCL compute, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is the better pick, as evidenced by its 4.1% lead in the direct head-to-head test. Its higher texture rate (38.40 GTexel/s vs. 20.16 GTexel/s) also suggests an advantage in texture-heavy tasks. However, the AMD FirePro W4100 is the superior choice for Vulkan-based workloads, where it scores 6496 — a score that has no Intel counterpart. Additionally, its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent performance that the Intel part cannot guarantee, given its system-dependent memory configuration.

The AMD card also offers a higher FP32 compute rate (645.1 GFLOPS vs. 614.4 GFLOPS) and a higher pixel rate (10.08 GPixel/s vs. 4.800 GPixel/s), making it better for pixel-bound rendering. The Intel part’s 15 W TDP is a major advantage in power-constrained systems, compared to the AMD card’s 50 W TDP, but the AMD card is a standalone single-slot solution with 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs, suitable for multi-monitor professional setups.

Users requiring broad API support should prefer the AMD FirePro W4100, as it supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while Intel is limited to OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. For integrated, low-power systems where dedicated graphics is unavailable, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is the only viable option, but for discrete workstation tasks, the AMD card’s dedicated memory and display outputs make it the more complete package.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4100 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 8.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | Not listed |

| Shading Units | 512 | 384 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 32 | 48 |

| Raster Operation Pipelines | 16 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.08 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.16 GTexel/s | 38.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 645.1 GFLOPS | 614.4 GFLOPS |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| TDP | 50 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Motherboard Dependent |

| OpenGL Version | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.0 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins in scenarios requiring dedicated memory and high pixel throughput. Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth ensures stable performance in applications that do not tolerate memory contention, such as CAD or video editing with large framebuffers. The 10.08 GPixel/s pixel rate gives it a 110% advantage over Intel’s 4.800 GPixel/s, making it better for fill-rate-limited rendering. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support and score of 6496 provide a modern API path that the Intel part cannot match. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also make it a natural fit for multi-monitor professional workstations.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins in OpenCL compute, texture-heavy workloads, and power-constrained environments. Its 4.1% lead in the direct OpenCL benchmark (5712 vs. 5478) is the only head-to-head victory, and its 38.40 GTexel/s texture rate is 90.5% higher than AMD’s, indicating a clear advantage for tasks like procedural texturing or image filtering. The 15 W TDP is less than a third of the AMD card’s 50 W, making it ideal for thin-and-light laptops or embedded systems where thermal and power budgets are tight. Its 14 nm process node also suggests better energy efficiency per transistor, though specific efficiency numbers are not in the data. For users with no PCIe slot available, the Ring Bus interface and integrated design are the only option.