AMD FirePro W600 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark for these two GPUs, the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that measurement, the AMD FirePro W600 records a score of 6223, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 records 5712. The AMD part wins this comparison with a delta of 8.9%. This is a meaningful but not overwhelming margin; it places the FirePro roughly nine percent ahead of the Intel integrated solution in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this result. The FirePro W600 sits within a tight cluster of scores: the AMD Radeon HD 6950 averages 6210 (a 0.2% delta), while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282 (a -0.9% delta). The FirePro's 6223 is essentially tied with those discrete cards, which suggests that its OpenCL performance is competitive with older midrange desktop parts. The Intel Iris Pro P6300, by contrast, lands near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721, -0.1% delta) and the GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731, -0.3% delta), indicating that its score aligns with mobile and older entry-level discrete GPUs rather than desktop-class parts.

The delta between the two contenders is larger than the deltas seen within each card's own rival cluster. For the FirePro, the closest rival delta is 0.2%, while the Intel's closest delta is 0.1%. The 8.9% gap between the two reviewed cards is therefore substantial in relative terms, even though the absolute score difference is only 511 points. In percentile terms, the FirePro W600 ranks at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Iris Pro P6300 ranks at the 33rd percentile. That three-percentile gap reflects the performance ordering but also shows that both parts sit in the lower half of the overall distribution.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, which is 8.9% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5712.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro W600 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro W600's 6223 score is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210) and within 0.9% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282). It is also slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both of which average 6270, a -0.7% delta.

Q: Where does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 sit among its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part's 5712 score is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721), 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691), and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604).

Q: What are the percentile rankings of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 is at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is at the 33rd percentile.

Q: Which card wins the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 wins the single recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a delta of 8.9%. The Intel part records zero wins in the comparison.

Q: Are these two GPUs close in overall performance?

A: They are in the same performance tier, but not close enough to be considered equivalent. The FirePro leads by 8.9% in the measured workload, and its percentile rank is three points higher. Both are below the median of the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow preference for the AMD FirePro W600 in compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6223 beats the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5712 by 8.9%, and its percentile rank of 36 versus 33 reinforces that lead. The FirePro also aligns with discrete desktop GPUs like the Radeon HD 6950 and Quadro K620, whereas the Intel part aligns with mobile parts like the GeForce GTX 670MX and entry-level desktop parts like the GTX 550 Ti. For anyone choosing strictly on benchmark performance, the AMD card is the stronger option.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is not without merit. Its 5712 score is within 0.4% of the Radeon HD 8790M and within 1.9% of the Quadro M500M, showing that it can keep pace with some discrete mobile GPUs. However, it does not beat the FirePro in any recorded test, and its 33rd percentile placement means it sits below the FirePro in the overall distribution. The Intel part's advantage would have to come from factors outside this benchmark, such as its integrated nature, which the data does not quantify in performance terms.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD FirePro W600 is the better choice when the sole criterion is the measured OpenCL performance. The margin is 8.9%, which is not trivial but also not overwhelming. The Intel part is a viable alternative only in scenarios where the workload is lighter than this benchmark, but the recorded data does not support a performance-based argument for choosing it over the FirePro.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every physical and interface specification in the database. The AMD FirePro W600 uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses a 14 nm process node from Intel. The FirePro has a die size of 123 mm² and 1,500 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Intel part has no recorded die size, transistor count, or density in the database.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The Intel Iris Pro uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock. The FirePro's memory bandwidth is a fixed, hardware-defined figure, while the Intel part's is variable and tied to the host system.

Compute resources differ in structure. The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The pixel rate for the FirePro is 12.00 GPixel/s, while the Intel part's is 4.800 GPixel/s. The texture rate favors the Intel part: 38.40 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s for the FirePro. The FP32 peak for the FirePro is 768.0 GFLOPS, compared to 614.4 GFLOPS for the Intel part.

Power and physical design also diverge. The FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel Iris Pro has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The FirePro measures 168 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the Intel part has no recorded dimensions. The FirePro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. Display outputs are also different: the FirePro offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the Intel part's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear from the database. The AMD FirePro W600 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Cape Verde chip, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses Generation 8.0 architecture, based on the Broadwell GT3e chip, within the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: a discrete GPU with dedicated memory versus an integrated processor with shared system memory.

The process nodes reflect their respective eras: the FirePro uses 28 nm at TSMC, while the Intel part uses 14 nm at Intel. The FirePro carries 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, which the database records as a density of 12.2M per mm². The Intel part has no transistor or die size data, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the recorded facts.

Feature-wise, the API support differs. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), but the FirePro supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. This gives the AMD card a more modern API profile in the database. The FirePro's FP32 peak of 768.0 GFLOPS exceeds the Intel part's 614.4 GFLOPS, but the Intel part has a higher texture rate (38.40 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s), which suggests a different balance of compute and texture throughput.

The memory architecture is the most consequential difference. The FirePro's dedicated GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable performance, whereas the Intel part's system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth ties its performance to the host platform. The FirePro also has a base clock and boost clock listed as null in the database, while the Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz. These figures, however, do not translate into a higher benchmark score for the Intel part, as the recorded OpenCL results show the FirePro ahead by 8.9%.

The release dates also differ: the FirePro launched on 2012-06-12, while the Intel part launched on 2014-09-04. The FirePro has a recorded predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro Polaris), while the Intel part has neither. Both are end-of-life products in the database. The FirePro carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the Intel part has no recorded MSRP.