AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs Intel UHD Graphics 750 Comparison

AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel UHD Graphics 750 land within a hair of each other in aggregate performance, but their benchmark profiles tell different stories. The AMD part wins the only direct comparison, while the Intel chip counters with a superior API feature set and a much lower power footprint. The data shows a genuine split: raw compute favors the older discrete GPU, while modern interface support and efficiency favor the newer integrated solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M takes it decisively. The AMD card scores 7,447 points against the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 6,743 points, a delta of 10.4% in AMD's favor. That is not a marginal gap; it represents a meaningful lead in general-purpose compute workloads that stress raw shader throughput. The Intel part does not win any head-to-head tests in this dataset, though its separate Vulkan score of 8,138 points shows it is capable in that specific API — a result that does not factor into the direct comparison since the AMD card has no Vulkan benchmark listed.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how close these two are overall. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M's average score of 7,447 puts it 0.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750's average of 7,441. Both parts sit at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier in the broader landscape. The deltaPct values against their shared rivals are nearly identical: both are within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425), both trail the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472) by roughly 0.3-0.4%, and both fall 1.4% short of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550). In short, the head-to-head win for AMD is real but narrow, and neither chip threatens the next tier up.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational and philosophical. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Venus chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 750, by contrast, uses Generation 12.1 architecture on the Rocket Lake chip, built on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for this integrated part, but the process node alone signals a different design era — AMD's chip is older and more power-hungry per unit of performance.

The compute resources are starkly different. AMD fields 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Intel counters with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having 2.5x the shading units and 2.5x the TMUs, AMD's pixel rate is actually slightly lower: 10.00 GPixel/s versus Intel's 10.40 GPixel/s. AMD does win on texture rate, posting 25.00 GTexel/s against Intel's 20.80 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput tells a similar story — AMD delivers 800.0 GFLOPS versus Intel's 665.6 GFLOPS, a 20% advantage. Intel, however, has a clear edge in half-precision compute with 1,331.2 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), a feature AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture lacks entirely.

Clock behavior is another differentiator. AMD runs at a 575 MHz base with a 625 MHz boost, while Intel idles at 300 MHz but boosts to 1,300 MHz. That wide boost range reflects the integrated nature of the Intel part, which scales with thermal and power headroom. The memory subsystems are fundamentally incompatible in design: AMD uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth; Intel relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The bus interface also reflects this split — AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16 for a discrete card, while Intel connects via Ring Bus as an integrated graphics processor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M leads in FP32 with 800.0 GFLOPS versus Intel's 665.6 GFLOPS, and it also wins the Geekbench OpenCL test 7,447 to 6,743, a 10.4% margin.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 have any compute advantage?

A: Yes. It supports FP16 compute at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a capability the AMD GCN 1.0 part does not list. Its Vulkan score of 8,138 also exceeds its own OpenCL score, though no Vulkan result is available for AMD.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: AMD uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system-shared memory with a system-shared type and bus width, and its bandwidth is listed as system dependent.

Q: Which part is more power-efficient?

A: Intel lists a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, while AMD lists no TDP but is a discrete card on PCIe 3.0 x16. The architectural differences imply Intel is designed for lower power, but the data does not provide a direct wattage comparison.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it a newer DirectX feature level and a more recent Vulkan version.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. AMD released in 2013, and Intel released in 2021.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon HD 8850M | Intel UHD Graphics 750 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 12.1 |

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

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | Not listed |

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

| Base Clock | 575 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 625 MHz | 1,300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

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

| Shading Units | 640 | 256 |

| TMUs | 40 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.00 GPixel/s | 10.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.00 GTexel/s | 20.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 800.0 GFLOPS | 665.6 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | Not listed | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-03-31 | 2021-03-29 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins on raw compute throughput. Its 640 shading units and 40 TMUs produce 800.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 25.00 GTexel/s, and that translates directly to a 10.4% OpenCL benchmark victory. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a fixed memory allocation that does not compete with the CPU for system RAM. For workloads that stress traditional shader count and texture fill — older DirectX 11-era games, OpenCL compute tasks, or any scenario where consistent memory bandwidth matters — the AMD part is the stronger choice.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins on modern features and efficiency. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor make it a low-power integrated solution, and its Ring Bus connection eliminates the need for a discrete PCIe slot. The Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level are both newer than AMD's offerings, and the FP16 capability at 1,331.2 GFLOPS opens up half-precision compute paths that AMD cannot touch. The higher boost clock of 1,300 MHz and slightly better pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s also give it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios. For systems where power draw is critical, or where the latest API features are required, Intel takes the win.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. If the priority is pure compute performance in OpenCL, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins outright — its 10.4% benchmark lead and superior FP32 throughput make it the faster part for number-crunching workloads. The dedicated memory and wider 128-bit bus also provide a stable foundation that an integrated part cannot match.

If the priority is modern API support, efficiency, and integration, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the better pick. Its Vulkan 1.4 support, DirectX 12_1 feature level, and FP16 compute capability represent a newer feature set, while the 15 W TDP and Ring Bus interface make it a sensible choice for low-power or compact systems. The 0.1% aggregate score difference between the two (7,447 vs 7,441) means neither has a meaningful overall advantage — the decision comes down to workload type and system constraints, not raw performance. Users needing discrete-class compute should choose AMD; users needing modern graphics features in an integrated package should choose Intel.