AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 6950 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 come from opposite ends of the graphics hardware spectrum. The former is a discrete add-in board from the Northern Islands generation, designed for full-size desktop towers. The latter is an integrated graphics processor embedded within a Broadwell chip, intended for compact laptops and low-power systems. Despite their different origins, both cards land surprisingly close in the database’s OpenCL benchmark results, making their comparison a study of how far integrated graphics have come against an aging but powerful discrete part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6210 points, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712 points. The delta between them is 8.7 percent in favor of AMD. That is a meaningful gap, but not an overwhelming one. A score difference of roughly 500 points places these two GPUs in adjacent performance tiers, not entirely different leagues.

Looking at the percentile ranks, the HD 6950 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile. The three-point gap in percentile positioning reinforces the head-to-head result: the AMD card is modestly faster, but both are near the lower-middle portion of the overall performance distribution.

The nearest rival data adds context. For the HD 6950, the closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W600 with an average score of 6223, a 0.2 percent difference. The next nearest are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both at 6270, for a 0.9 percent delta, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282, a 1.1 percent delta. These are close scores, meaning the HD 6950’s OpenCL result is very much in line with a cluster of very different GPUs, from professional workstation cards to modern flagship-class parts. That cluster suggests the OpenCL benchmark measures compute throughput that has not scaled linearly with generational improvements.

For the Iris Pro P6300, the nearest rivals are similarly tight. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX scores 5721, a 0.1 percent delta. The GTX 550 Ti scores 5731, a 0.3 percent delta. The AMD Radeon HD 8790M scores 5691, a 0.4 percent delta in the Intel part’s favor. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5604, a 1.9 percent delta. All four rivals sit within roughly 2 percent of the Intel integrated part. The data shows that in OpenCL compute, the Iris Pro P6300 is competitive with a range of mid-tier discrete mobile and desktop GPUs from its era.

What stands out is that the HD 6950 wins by 8.7 percent, but its nearest rivals are all within 1.1 percent of its score. That means the AMD card is not an outlier in its performance class; it is a representative member of a cluster. Similarly, the Intel part is not far off that cluster. The practical interpretation is that for OpenCL workloads, the two cards are in the same broad performance band, with AMD holding a clear but not dominant edge.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is wide. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 uses the Cayman chip built on TeraScale 3 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die size is 389 mm² and it contains 2,640 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 6.8 million per square millimeter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip on Generation 8.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel. Transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database for the Intel part, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the data.

The AMD card has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. Those are stark differences. The HD 6950 has more than three and a half times the shading units, nearly double the TMUs, and more than five times the ROPs. Yet the OpenCL score gap is only 8.7 percent. This is a key insight: raw shader count does not translate linearly into compute performance, especially when clock speeds and memory systems differ so much.

The AMD card runs at a memory clock of 1250 MHz, which translates to 5 Gbps effective on GDDR5 memory. It has 2 GB of dedicated VRAM on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with the bus width and type also labeled system shared. Its bandwidth is described as system dependent, meaning it varies based on the host platform’s memory configuration. The base clock for the Intel GPU is 300 MHz, with a boost clock of 800 MHz. The AMD card lists no base or boost clock in the database, only the memory clock.

The pixel rate tells a clear story. The HD 6950 achieves 25.60 GPixel/s, while the Iris Pro P6300 manages 4.800 GPixel/s. That is a 5.3x difference in fill rate. Texture rate is also lopsided: 70.40 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s, a 1.8x difference. Floating point performance shows 2.253 TFLOPS for AMD versus 614.4 GFLOPS for Intel, a 3.7x gap. These are large differences in theoretical peak throughput. The fact that the OpenCL benchmark delta is only 8.7 percent suggests the benchmark is not saturating these theoretical limits, or that the Intel architecture is more efficient per FLOP in this particular workload.

Power consumption is another major differentiator. The AMD card has a TDP of 200 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and draws power from two 6-pin connectors. The suggested power supply is 550 W. The Intel part has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP with no separate power connectors, and does not list a suggested PSU. That is a 185 W difference in thermal design power. The performance per watt is heavily skewed toward Intel, even if raw performance favors AMD.

The bus interface also differs. The HD 6950 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus, reflecting its integrated nature. Display outputs on the AMD card include 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The Intel card’s outputs are motherboard dependent. API support shows the AMD card supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0), OpenGL 4.4, and no Vulkan. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. That is a notable difference: the integrated part supports a newer DirectX version and includes Vulkan, while the older discrete card does not.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6210 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712. The AMD card is ahead by 8.7 percent.

Q: How do their pixel fill rates compare?

A: The HD 6950 achieves a pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s, while the Iris Pro P6300 achieves 4.800 GPixel/s. The AMD card is more than five times faster in this metric.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The HD 6950 has a TDP of 200 W, while the Iris Pro P6300 has a TDP of 15 W. The AMD card requires a dual-slot cooler and two 6-pin power connectors, while the Intel part is an IGP with no separate power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support. The Iris Pro P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The HD 6950 has 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The Iris Pro P6300 uses system shared memory and its bandwidth is system dependent, with no fixed figure.

Q: What are their percentile rankings among all GPUs?

A: The HD 6950 is at the 36th percentile, and the Iris Pro P6300 is at the 33rd percentile. Both sit in the lower-middle range of the database’s GPU distribution.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner in raw performance: the AMD Radeon HD 6950. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.7 percent and holds a 36th versus 33rd percentile advantage. In every recorded throughput metric, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute, the AMD card is substantially ahead. The HD 6950 is the stronger GPU for workloads that stress fill rate, texture filtering, or raw floating point math.

However, the Iris Pro P6300 wins decisively on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP versus 200 W means it consumes roughly 7.5 percent of the power for 92 percent of the OpenCL score. It also supports DirectX 12 and Vulkan, which the AMD card lacks. For a laptop or compact system where power draw and physical space are constrained, the Intel part is the only viable choice despite its lower scores.

The choice depends entirely on the use case. If the system has a PCIe slot, a 550 W power supply, and space for a 286 mm long, dual-slot card, the HD 6950 provides more compute and graphics throughput. If the system is a thin laptop or a low-power desktop, the Iris Pro P6300 is the right fit, and its OpenCL score shows it is not far behind in compute tasks. Neither card is a modern high-end part; both are end-of-life products. But the data shows the HD 6950 remains the faster option for compute, while the Iris Pro P6300 represents a more efficient, more modern integrated solution.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 40 nm for AMD versus 14 nm for Intel. The architecture is TeraScale 3 versus Generation 8.0. Transistor count is 2,640 million for AMD, while Intel’s is not recorded. Die size is 389 mm² for AMD, not recorded for Intel. The AMD card has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs.

Memory configuration is completely different: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth for AMD, versus system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth for Intel. The memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for AMD, while Intel’s memory clock is not applicable since it uses shared memory. The AMD card has a base clock not recorded, and no boost clock; the Intel part has a 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost. Pixel rate is 25.60 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 70.40 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.253 TFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS.

TDP is 200 W versus 15 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are 2x 6-pin for AMD, none for Intel. Suggested PSU is 550 W for AMD, not listed for Intel. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs are 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for AMD, versus motherboard dependent for Intel. API support differs: DirectX 11.2 (11_0), OpenGL 4.4, no Vulkan for AMD; DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, Vulkan 1.0 for Intel. Dimensions are recorded only for AMD: 286 mm length, 126 mm height, 42 mm width. Release dates differ: December 2010 for AMD, September 2014 for Intel. The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 299 USD; the Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 6950 wins in every raw performance category recorded. It has higher pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth. It wins the OpenCL benchmark. It has dedicated VRAM, which avoids competition with the CPU for system memory. For tasks that require sustained compute throughput, such as rendering, video processing, or GPU-accelerated calculations in OpenCL, the HD 6950 is the better part. Its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2.253 TFLOPS are simply higher numbers than what the Intel part can reach.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins in efficiency and API support. Its 15 W TDP is 7.5 percent of the AMD card’s 200 W. It supports DirectX 12 and Vulkan, making it compatible with newer graphics APIs. It uses system shared memory, which means no dedicated VRAM allocation is needed. Its system dependent bandwidth could be a benefit in unified memory architectures where the GPU and CPU share the same pool. For a lightweight laptop or an embedded system, the Intel part is the only realistic option. Its OpenCL score of 5712 shows it is not far behind the AMD card in compute tasks, despite having far fewer shading units and a much lower clock ceiling.

The data suggests a simple split: choose the HD 6950 for raw performance in a desktop with adequate power and cooling. Choose the Iris Pro P6300 for power efficiency, modern API support, and integration into a compact system. The 8.7 percent OpenCL gap is the only benchmark comparison available, and it favors AMD. But the architectural differences, especially the 185 W TDP gap and the newer API set, show that the Intel part is designed for a completely different environment. Neither GPU is a clear winner across all criteria; the winner depends on whether the priority is throughput or efficiency.