AMD FirePro W600 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the AMD FirePro W600 and the Intel UHD Graphics P630. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223 points, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 points. This gives the AMD part a 21.8% advantage, making it the clear winner in this specific workload. The margin is substantial, indicating that the FirePro W600 holds a decisive edge in general-purpose compute tasks as measured by OpenCL.

Looking at the broader context, the AMD FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at the 31st percentile. This 5-point spread in percentile placement aligns with the head-to-head result. The AMD card's average benchmark score is 6223, while Intel's average is 5370, reflecting the P630's two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) and the W600's single OpenCL benchmark.

The nearest rivals in the database provide additional calibration. The AMD FirePro W600 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950, which scores 6210. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER by 0.7% each, both scoring 6270, and it is 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620, which scores 6282. For the Intel UHD Graphics P630, the closest competition includes the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358, which it leads by 0.2%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X at 5416, which leads it by 0.8%. The Intel part also sits slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A by 1%. These figures place both cards in the lower-middle spectrum of the database, but the AMD card consistently outperforms the Intel part by a meaningful margin.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is wide, reflecting different design philosophies and eras. The AMD FirePro W600 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using Cape Verde silicon, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture with Comet Lake GT2 silicon, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 14 nm+++, though the AMD chip is a discrete GPU while Intel's solution is an integrated graphics processor.

The AMD FirePro W600 packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, but its integrated nature means it shares the CPU package rather than occupying its own space. The AMD card uses 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations units. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This disparity in shading units and ROPs helps explain the AMD card's higher pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s compared to the Intel part's 3.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate tells a slightly different story: the AMD card achieves 24.00 GTexel/s, while the Intel part reaches 28.80 GTexel/s, meaning Intel actually leads in texture throughput despite having fewer TMUs, likely due to higher clock behavior.

Floating-point performance further illustrates the gap. The AMD FirePro W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 delivers 460.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part does support FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the AMD card does not list. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the AMD card has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Intel part uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance relies entirely on the host platform's memory subsystem.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion for compute-oriented tasks: the AMD FirePro W600 is the stronger GPU. Its 21.8% lead in OpenCL, its higher shading unit count, and its dedicated GDDR5 memory all point to superior raw performance. The Intel UHD Graphics P630, by contrast, is an integrated solution with system-shared memory, lower FP32 throughput, and fewer execution resources. For anyone running OpenCL workloads or needing consistent compute performance from a discrete card, the AMD FirePro W600 is the better choice.

However, the Intel part is not without merit. Its FP16 capability at 921.6 GFLOPS doubles its FP32 output, a feature absent from the AMD card's specifications. It also supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a much lower TDP of 15 W, compared to the AMD card's 75 W, making it far more power-efficient for basic graphics tasks. The Intel part also has no power connector requirements and uses a Ring Bus interface, reflecting its integrated design.

The AMD FirePro W600 is end-of-life, as is the Intel part, so neither represents a future-proof investment. The AMD card launched with a 599 USD MSRP, but the database does not list a current price, and any discussion of value is outside the scope of these measurements. The choice ultimately depends on whether the user needs discrete compute performance or integrated efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD FirePro W600 uses a 28 nm TSMC process, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses 14 nm+++ from Intel. The AMD chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die; the Intel part has no transistor or die size data. Clock behavior differs as well: the AMD card lists only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), with no base or boost clock recorded, while the Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz.

Memory is a major divider. The AMD card has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. Compute resources favor AMD: 512 shading units versus 192, 32 TMUs versus 24, and 16 ROPs versus 3. Pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s for AMD versus 3.600 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate favors Intel at 28.80 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 output is 768.0 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part adds FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS, which AMD does not list.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The AMD card has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The Intel part has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no PSU suggestion. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. Display outputs are 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for AMD, while Intel's are motherboard dependent. API support shows Intel ahead on DirectX (12_1 versus 11_1 for AMD) and Vulkan (1.3 versus 1.2.170), while both support OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card measures 168 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the Intel part has no dimensions recorded. The AMD card was released on 2012-06-12, the Intel part on 2020-05-12.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111, giving AMD a 21.8% lead.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics P630 support FP16 compute?

A: Yes, the Intel part lists FP16 performance of 921.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD FirePro W600 has no FP16 figure recorded.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP and suggests a 250 W power supply. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a 15 W TDP and lists no power supply suggestion.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192 shading units.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W600 wins in raw compute performance. Its 21.8% OpenCL advantage over the Intel part is the headline result, and its 512 shading units, 16 ROPs, and dedicated 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 memory make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads, pixel processing, and any task that benefits from discrete memory bandwidth. The 12.00 GPixel/s pixel rate is more than three times the Intel part's 3.600 GPixel/s, so rendering tasks that stress fill rate will clearly favor AMD. Its 768.0 GFLOPS FP32 output also exceeds the Intel part by roughly 67%.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in efficiency and API modernity. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of AMD's 75 W, making it suitable for low-power systems where heat and energy are concerns. Its FP16 support at 921.6 GFLOPS doubles its FP32 throughput, which could benefit workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. The Intel part also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_1, both newer than the AMD card's Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 11_1. Its texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s is 20% higher than AMD's 24.00 GTexel/s, so texture-heavy scenarios might see a relative advantage for Intel.

The use-case split is clear. Workstations running OpenCL compute, multi-display setups (the AMD card drives 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs), or applications that rely on dedicated VRAM should choose the AMD FirePro W600. Systems prioritizing low power draw, integrated simplicity, newer API support, or FP16 compute should consider the Intel UHD Graphics P630. Neither card is current, but the data shows the AMD part as the performance leader and the Intel part as the efficiency leader.