AMD Radeon 760M vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two integrated graphics processors. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255 points against the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5,111 points. That is a 296.3% advantage for the AMD part, meaning it delivers roughly four times the compute throughput in this workload. The margin is even larger in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Radeon 760M reaches 30,336 points while the Intel solution manages only 5,628 points, a 439% difference. In practical terms, the AMD chip is not just faster; it is in a different performance class entirely.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The Radeon 760M posts an average of 6,019 points across its recorded tests, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 averages 5,370 points. That overall average gap is smaller than the head-to-head deltas because the AMD part’s benchmark suite includes additional DirectX and PassMark tests that pull its average down, while the Intel part only has two recorded Geekbench entries. Still, the direction is consistent: the AMD Radeon 760M wins both head-to-head comparisons, and the wins are substantial.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database helps contextualize these scores. The Radeon 760M’s average score of 6,019 places it within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001 points) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000 points). It is also 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996 points) and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049 points). In other words, this integrated GPU performs like a discrete graphics card from a few generations ago, at least in aggregate benchmarks. The Intel UHD Graphics P630, by contrast, sits at the 31st percentile among all GPUs in the database, with its nearest rivals being older mobile discrete parts like the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5,358 points, 0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5,322 points, 0.9% behind). The Intel part is competitive with those low-end discrete options, but it is nowhere near the Radeon 760M’s standing.

The percentile rankings tell the same story. The Radeon 760M lands in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, which is modest in absolute terms, but the Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at the 31st percentile. The four-point percentile gap understates the real performance difference because the distribution of GPU scores is dense in this range. The delta in raw benchmark scores is what matters, and that delta is enormous in the two tests where both parts have recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon 760M is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Phoenix, packs 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. The chip is Comet Lake GT2, and the database records no transistor count or die size for it. The process node difference alone, 4 nm versus 14 nm+++, explains a large portion of the performance gap. The AMD part fits vastly more transistors into a smaller area, which translates directly into more shading units, texture units, and raster operations hardware.

The compute resources differ sharply. The Radeon 760M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Intel part. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. The ROP count is particularly telling: 3 ROPs means the Intel part can only rasterize a tiny fraction of the pixels per clock that the AMD part can. The pixel rate confirms this: the Radeon 760M achieves 41.58 GPixel/s, while the Intel part manages just 3.600 GPixel/s. That is more than an 11-fold difference in pixel throughput. The texture rate tells a similar story: 83.17 GTexel/s for AMD versus 28.80 GTexel/s for Intel.

Clock speeds also favor the AMD part. The Radeon 760M runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2599 MHz. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz. The AMD boost clock is more than double the Intel boost clock. Combined with the higher shading unit count, the floating-point throughput difference is massive: the Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel part delivers 460.8 GFLOPS. That is an 11.5-fold difference in raw compute. The FP16 numbers also differ in shape: AMD offers 5.323 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while Intel offers 921.6 GFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The Intel part’s FP16 rate is exactly double its FP32 rate, which suggests it uses a packed math approach, but even so, the absolute numbers are far lower.

Memory architecture is shared in both cases. Both GPUs use system shared memory, with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. Neither has dedicated VRAM. The bus interface differs: the AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus connection. The Radeon 760M also supports a newer API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX version difference (12_2 versus 12_1) means the AMD part supports hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders through DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the Intel part does not.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous conclusion: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior GPU by every measurable metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, higher percentile ranking, more shading units, more ROPs, higher clocks, and support for newer APIs. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is an older design from 2020, and it is end-of-life in production status. The Radeon 760M was released in January 2024 and remains active.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision comes down to what they are pairing the GPU with. The Radeon 760M is part of AMD’s Phoenix chip, which means it comes with a modern Ryzen processor. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is part of the Comet Lake generation, which is older and uses a less efficient process. If the choice is between a new AMD system and an older Intel system, the AMD part wins on graphics performance alone. The 296.3% OpenCL lead and 439% Vulkan lead are not marginal improvements; they represent playable versus unplayable in many modern titles.

The Intel part is not without a niche. Its 15 W TDP matches the AMD part’s 15 W TDP, so power consumption is identical on paper. For a system where graphics performance is irrelevant, such as a basic office machine or a headless server, the Intel part’s lower absolute performance does not matter. But for any workload that touches the GPU, from video playback to light gaming to compute acceleration, the Radeon 760M is the only rational choice. The database records no benchmark where the Intel part wins, and the architecture gap is too wide to overcome.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M scores 20,255 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 296.3% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5,111 points.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics P630 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Intel part has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The AMD Radeon 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the difference in pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M achieves 41.58 GPixel/s, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 achieves 3.600 GPixel/s. The AMD part is over 11 times faster in this metric.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan 1.4?

A: Only the AMD Radeon 760M. It supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Are both GPUs limited to system shared memory?

A: Yes. Both parts use system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width. Neither has dedicated VRAM.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is listed as Active, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is listed as End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in every recorded benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it is 296.3% ahead. In Geekbench Vulkan, it is 439% ahead. It also has a higher average benchmark score (6,019 versus 5,370) and a higher percentile ranking (35th versus 31st). The AMD part wins on architecture features as well: it has more shading units (512 versus 192), more TMUs (32 versus 24), more ROPs (16 versus 3), ray tracing cores (8 versus none), a higher boost clock (2599 MHz versus 1200 MHz), and a smaller process node (4 nm versus 14 nm+++).

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 does not win any benchmark, but it does have one practical advantage: it is part of the older Comet Lake platform, which may be available in cheaper or already-owned systems. The database shows no performance scenario where the Intel part comes out ahead. Its FP16 rate of 921.6 GFLOPS is higher than its FP32 rate of 460.8 GFLOPS, but that still falls far short of the AMD part’s 5.323 TFLOPS in either precision.

If the use case is strictly 2D desktop work, legacy applications, or tasks that do not stress the GPU, the Intel part will function, but the Radeon 760M will do the same tasks faster and with headroom for more demanding workloads. The data does not support any scenario where the Intel part is the better choice for graphics performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 760M | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Generation 9.5 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 14 nm+++ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2599 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Shading Units | 512 | 192 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 3 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 41.58 GPixel/s | 3.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.17 GTexel/s | 28.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.323 TFLOPS | 460.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) | 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2020-05-12 |