AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics Comparison

Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics and AMD Radeon Pro 555 are both end-of-life mobile-class GPUs, but the data shows they target very different performance profiles. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the Intel Iris Xe MAX decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 555, yet the AMD part counters with superior API flexibility and a broader benchmark portfolio.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a clear victory for Intel. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 11,682. This translates to a 22.5% performance advantage for Intel in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial gap that indicates the Intel part's architecture delivers significantly higher raw throughput in OpenCL.

To contextualize the Intel score, it sits at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, placing it in direct competition with established desktop parts. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (average score 14,352, a -0.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373, -0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14,277, +0.3%). This means the Iris Xe MAX is not merely a low-power curiosity; it is trading blows with high-end discrete graphics cards from previous generations, landing squarely between the GTX 1070 Ti and the GTX TITAN in compute performance.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555, in contrast, scores 11,682 in OpenCL, placing it at the 54th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, +0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, +0.4%), and the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, +0.4%). The delta percentages here indicate the Radeon Pro 555 is essentially neck-and-neck with these parts, with its OpenCL score being slightly lower but within a fraction of a percent. This places it in a lower performance tier than the Intel part, which is over 22% faster in the same test.

However, the Radeon Pro 555 offers a broader benchmark profile, including Geekbench Metal and Vulkan results. In Metal, it scores 16,236, which is its strongest result and suggests the architecture is well-optimized for Apple's graphics API. Its Vulkan score of 12,303 is also respectable, sitting between its OpenCL and Metal scores. While the Intel part only has an OpenCL score, the Radeon's multi-API results show it can deliver competitive performance across different software ecosystems, even if its peak OpenCL throughput is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a higher average benchmark score of 14,315, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 555's average of 13,407.

Q: How significant is the Intel's lead in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX is 22.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 555 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 14,315 versus 11,682.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 555 support more graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro 555 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel Iris Xe MAX supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX has 4 GB of LPDDR4X memory on a 128-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory also on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 has a higher memory bandwidth of 81.60 GB/s, compared to the Intel Iris Xe MAX's 68.26 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP for each graphics card?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX has a TDP of 25 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 has a TDP of 75 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The Intel Iris Xe MAX is built on Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture, codenamed DG1, using a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. This is a modern, power-efficient design. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro 555 uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture, built on the Polaris 21 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The manufacturing process difference is stark: Intel's 10 nm node versus AMD's 14 nm node, which directly contributes to the significant TDP disparity.

The compute resources show a key similarity and a critical difference. Both GPUs feature 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units (TMUs). However, the Intel part has 24 ROPs, while the AMD part has only 16 ROPs. This difference in ROP count is a major factor in the Intel's higher pixel and texture fill rates. The Intel part achieves a pixel rate of 39.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 79.20 GTexel/s, while the AMD part delivers a much lower 13.60 GPixel/s and 40.80 GTexel/s, respectively. This indicates the Intel architecture is more efficient at rasterization and texture processing per clock.

The FP32 and FP16 performance also diverges sharply. Intel's FP32 throughput is 2.534 TFLOPS, and it offers 5.069 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, indicating dedicated half-precision hardware. AMD's FP32 is 1,305.6 GFLOPS, with FP16 performance at the same 1,305.6 GFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio where FP16 is emulated or not accelerated separately. The Intel part's superior FP32 throughput aligns with its higher OpenCL score. The AMD part includes 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the Intel die size is 95 mm² with no transistor count listed.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several clear differences beyond the core architecture. The most obvious is memory: the Intel Iris Xe MAX ships with 4 GB of LPDDR4X, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Although the AMD part has a higher effective memory speed (5.1 Gbps vs 4.3 Gbps) and thus higher bandwidth (81.60 GB/s vs 68.26 GB/s), the Intel part offers double the capacity.

The bus interface also differs, with Intel using PCIe 4.0 x8 and AMD using the older PCIe 3.0 x8 standard. This gives the Intel part a potential advantage in data transfer speeds to the host system, though the practical impact depends on the platform. The power profile is a major differentiator: the Intel part has a TDP of 25 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the AMD part has a TDP of 75 W and no suggested PSU listed. This makes the Intel part dramatically more power-efficient.

The display outputs also differ significantly. The Intel Iris Xe MAX has "No outputs," meaning it is designed as a companion or compute-only processor. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 has "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, meaning it is intended to drive displays in a laptop environment. Finally, the API support differs: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Intel's higher feature level in DirectX and newer Vulkan version indicate more modern API capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 22.5% lead in OpenCL, combined with higher FP32 throughput (2.534 TFLOPS vs 1,305.6 GFLOPS), higher pixel rates (39.60 GPixel/s vs 13.60 GPixel/s), and higher texture rates (79.20 GTexel/s vs 40.80 GTexel/s), makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU computing. Its higher ROP count also suggests better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios. The Intel part's advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL score places it in the company of desktop GPUs like the GTX 1070 Ti, whereas the AMD part is closer to mobile-class parts like the RX 5500M.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins in API coverage and portability. It has benchmark results in three APIs (Metal, Vulkan, and OpenCL), while the Intel part only has an OpenCL score. This suggests the AMD part is more versatile across different software environments. Its highest score is in Metal at 16,236, which is actually higher than the Intel's OpenCL score of 14,315. This indicates that in Metal-optimized applications, the Radeon Pro 555 could outperform the Intel part. Furthermore, the AMD part has display outputs, making it a functional standalone graphics solution for a laptop, while the Intel part has no outputs and requires a separate GPU for display. The AMD part also offers higher memory bandwidth (81.60 GB/s vs 68.26 GB/s), which can benefit memory-intensive textures at lower resolutions.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in use cases. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the unequivocal winner. Its 22.5% performance lead and superior fill rates make it the stronger choice for any workload that leverages these capabilities. Its position among desktop-class rivals like the GTX 1070 Ti and GTX TITAN underscores its compute power. However, this performance comes with a critical caveat: the Intel part has no display outputs, making it unsuitable as a primary GPU.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555, while slower in OpenCL, is the more complete and versatile package. Its support for Metal and Vulkan, along with its display outputs, makes it a functional solution for a laptop environment. Its strong Metal score suggests it may be the better choice for macOS-specific applications. The higher memory bandwidth could also provide an edge in certain gaming or texture-heavy scenarios, despite the lower capacity.

Therefore, the verdict is driven by the application. Choose the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics if the workload is purely compute-focused within an OpenCL environment and a separate display adapter is present. Choose the AMD Radeon Pro 555 if the GPU must handle display output and needs broad API compatibility, especially for Metal-based applications, even if it sacrifices raw compute speed. The choice is not about which is "better" overall, but which is better suited to the specific task at hand.