AMD FirePro W600 vs Intel UHD Graphics 750 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 records an average benchmark score of 7441, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. This places the Intel part at the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 36th percentile for the AMD card.

Q: How do these two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test shows Intel UHD Graphics 750 scoring 6743 against the AMD FirePro W600's 6223, a 8.4% advantage for the Intel integrated graphics solution.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 provides 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Intel UHD Graphics 750's display outputs are Motherboard Dependent, as it is an integrated graphics processor.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors since it is an IGP. The AMD FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and carries a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Are both products still in production?

A: No. Both the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and the AMD FirePro W600 are marked as End-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is built on Intel's Rocket Lake chip using Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

The transistor counts tell a different story for each generation. The AMD part packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Intel part does not list transistor count or die size in the database, but its process node advantage is clear from the manufacturing data.

Compute resources differ substantially. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD FirePro W600 doubles those figures with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the AMD card higher theoretical pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s versus 20.80 GTexel/s).

However, the Intel part counters with a higher FP32 throughput in some respects. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 delivers 665.6 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD FirePro W600 reaches 768.0 GFLOPS. The Intel card also supports FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the AMD card does not list.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses System Shared memory, meaning capacity, type, and bus width all depend on the host system. The AMD FirePro W600 has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. The AMD FirePro W600 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective transfer rate.

API support shows the Intel part with a slight edge in DirectX (12_1 versus 12 (11_1)) and Vulkan (1.4 versus 1.2.170), while both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but context-dependent choice. If you need raw compute throughput in a compact package, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded: Geekbench OpenCL shows it ahead by 8.4% (6743 versus 6223). Its average benchmark score of 7441 also dwarfs the AMD card's 6223, and it sits at a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (40th versus 36th).

The AMD FirePro W600 should be selected when you need dedicated memory and multiple display outputs. Its 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is independent of system RAM, and six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it suited for multi-monitor workstation setups. The Intel part's display capability is entirely motherboard dependent.

Architecturally, the AMD card has more raw shading resources: double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. It also has higher pixel and texture rates. The Intel part counters with a newer process node (14 nm+++ versus 28 nm), a newer architecture generation (12.1 versus GCN 1.0), and a far lower TDP (15 W versus 75 W).

For a system builder prioritizing energy efficiency and integrated simplicity, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the logical pick. For a workstation needing guaranteed dedicated VRAM and professional multi-display capability, the AMD FirePro W600 has the hardware features to justify its place.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics 750 | AMD FirePro W600 |

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

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 12.2M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 256 | 512 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.80 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 665.6 GFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 128 bit |

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

| TDP | 15 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2021-03-29 | 2012-06-12 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Not listed | Radeon Pro Polaris |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 6743, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. This gives Intel a 8.4% victory in that test.

Looking at average scores across all recorded benchmarks, the Intel part maintains a similar margin. Its average of 7441 sits 19.6% above the AMD card's 6223. The Intel UHD Graphics 750's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (average 7447, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (average 7425, delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (average 7472, delta -0.4%), and the Intel Arc A310 (average 7550, delta -1.4%). This places it in a tightly contested mid-range cluster.

The AMD FirePro W600's nearest rivals show a different competitive landscape. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 averages 6210 (delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 averages 6270 (delta -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER averages 6270 (delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282 (delta -0.9%). The FirePro W600 sits just below this group.

In Vulkan, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 records a score of 8138, which is significantly higher than its OpenCL result. No Vulkan result is listed for the AMD FirePro W600, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible from the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins on raw benchmark performance. The Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head goes to Intel by 8.4%, and the average benchmark score favors Intel by nearly 20%. The Vulkan score of 8138 further demonstrates the Intel part's strength in compute-oriented workloads. Its newer architecture (Generation 12.1 versus GCN 1.0) and newer process node (14 nm+++ versus 28 nm) likely contribute to this efficiency.

Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins on power efficiency. With a 15 W TDP versus 75 W for the AMD card, the Intel part consumes one-fifth the power. This makes it suitable for low-power builds, mini PCs, and systems where thermal management is a priority.

Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins on API modernity. DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 are both ahead of the AMD card's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This matters for compatibility with newer software titles and compute APIs.

AMD FirePro W600 wins on dedicated memory. The 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth operates independently from system RAM. This removes memory contention issues that can affect integrated graphics solutions, where bandwidth is System Dependent.

AMD FirePro W600 wins on multi-display capability. Six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide a fixed, professional-grade display configuration. The Intel part's outputs are Motherboard Dependent, meaning capability varies by motherboard implementation.

AMD FirePro W600 wins on raw shader throughput. With 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, the AMD card has double the compute resources of the Intel part. Its pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s) both exceed the Intel UHD Graphics 750's figures.

AMD FirePro W600 wins on physical form factor flexibility. As a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 168 mm in length, it installs into standard expansion slots. The Intel part is an IGP with no physical card, which limits it to systems with compatible motherboard video outputs.

The practical choice depends on your workload. For general compute and modern API support with minimal power draw, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the stronger option. For professional multi-display output and guaranteed dedicated VRAM, the AMD FirePro W600 provides capabilities that integrated graphics cannot match.