AMD FirePro W5170M vs Intel UHD Graphics 750 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent advantage for the AMD FirePro W5170M across both benchmark suites. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W5170M scores 8140, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 6743. That is a 20.7% delta, a decisive lead for AMD in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The gap narrows somewhat in Vulkan, where the FirePro W5170M scores 9050 against 8138 for the Intel part, resulting in an 11.2% advantage. Both results place the AMD solution firmly ahead in raw graphics and compute performance.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the FirePro W5170M sits at the 44th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 8595. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A380 (8558, a 0.4% delta in favor of AMD), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686, which is 1.1% ahead of AMD), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462, 1.6% behind AMD), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8458, also 1.6% behind). The FirePro W5170M essentially trades blows with these peers, landing in the same performance tier while edging out most of them by a small margin.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750, by contrast, occupies the 40th percentile, with an average score of 7441. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, just 0.1% ahead of Intel), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, 0.2% behind Intel), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, 0.4% ahead of Intel), and the Intel Arc A310 (7550, 1.4% ahead of Intel). The UHD 750 is clustered tightly with these older or lower-tier parts, indicating that it performs at a modest level relative to the broader GPU market.

The head-to-head numbers tell the story without ambiguity. The FirePro W5170M wins both tests, and the margins are not trivial. A 20.7% lead in OpenCL is substantial for any comparison, and the 11.2% lead in Vulkan confirms the pattern rather than suggesting a single-test anomaly. The Intel part never comes within single digits of the AMD solution in either workload.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD FirePro W5170M is the superior performer in this matchup. It wins both benchmark tests, holds a higher percentile ranking (44th versus 40th), and delivers an average score that is over 1,100 points higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750. For any application that depends on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the FirePro W5170M is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, context matters. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, designed for basic display output and light workloads within a CPU package. The AMD FirePro W5170M is a discrete MXM module with dedicated GDDR5 memory, aimed at professional mobile workstations. The performance gap is expected given the form factor and memory architecture differences. The Intel part is not trying to compete with the FirePro in raw throughput; it exists to provide a baseline graphics capability for systems that do not require a discrete GPU.

So the verdict is straightforward: if the workload demands compute performance, the FirePro W5170M wins decisively. If the system requires an integrated solution with minimal power draw, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the only option in this comparison, and its benchmark scores reflect its limited role.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Tropo, packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 750, meanwhile, is based on Generation 12.1 architecture and manufactured on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. The Intel part does not have listed transistor or die size data, but its process node is older and less dense than the AMD option.

The FirePro W5170M features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. It has dedicated memory: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1125 MHz, with an effective data rate of 4.5 Gbps. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Its memory is system shared, meaning it draws from the host system's RAM, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The Intel part's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1300 MHz, while the AMD part runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the hardware differences. The FirePro W5170M achieves 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s, while the Intel UHD 750 manages 10.40 GPixel/s and 20.80 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is also lopsided: the AMD part delivers 1,184.0 GFLOPS, while the Intel part delivers 665.6 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the Intel UHD 750 supports FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the FirePro W5170M does not list.

API support differs as well. The FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel UHD 750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part also lists a TDP of 15 W, while the FirePro W5170M has no TDP listed in the database. The FirePro is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs for the FirePro are portable device dependent, while the Intel part is motherboard dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has an average benchmark score of 8595, compared to 7441 for the Intel UHD Graphics 750.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The FirePro W5170M scores 8140, while the Intel UHD 750 scores 6743. The AMD part leads by 20.7%.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 have any advantage in compute features?

A: The Intel UHD 750 supports FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a capability not listed for the AMD FirePro W5170M.

Q: How does the FirePro W5170M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro W5170M is 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A380, 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. It is 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2200.

Q: How does the Intel UHD 750 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel UHD 750 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350, 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, and 1.4% behind the Intel Arc A310.

Q: What is the release timeline for these GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M was released on August 24, 2014. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 was released on March 29, 2021. Both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5170M wins in every measured benchmark category. It takes the Geekbench OpenCL test by 20.7% and the Geekbench Vulkan test by 11.2%. Its higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (37.00 GTexel/s versus 20.80 GTexel/s) indicate stronger rasterization throughput as well. With 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, the FirePro is built for sustained compute and graphics workloads, and its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth ensures that memory bandwidth is not a bottleneck. The data supports its use in professional mobile workstations where OpenCL and Vulkan performance matter.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750, while losing all head-to-head tests, has its own niche. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for low-power systems where a discrete GPU is not an option. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are newer API versions than what the FirePro W5170M offers (DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170). The Intel part also supports FP16 compute at 1,331.2 GFLOPS, which could be relevant for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. Its system shared memory model is flexible, though performance depends on the host system's RAM. The Intel UHD 750 is the choice for integrated graphics scenarios, not for raw performance.

In summary, the FirePro W5170M is the winner in all direct comparisons, and the Intel UHD 750 serves a different purpose entirely. The benchmark data does not show any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the AMD part, so the selection comes down to system design and workload requirements rather than performance parity.