AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct comparison between these two mobile graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are heavily lopsided. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47783 points, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14315 points. This translates to a 233.8% advantage for the AMD part, meaning it delivers more than three times the raw compute performance in this specific workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M shows a much richer dataset. It has been tested across Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, as well as multiple Passmark subtests including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 16351. The Intel Iris Xe MAX, by contrast, only has a single recorded OpenCL score of 14315, which also serves as its average benchmark score.

The AMD part's individual scores reveal where its strengths lie. Its Geekbench Metal score is 55030, its OpenCL score is 47783, and its Vulkan score is 46425. In Passmark testing, it scores 9279 in G3D, 4031 in GPU compute, 679 in G2D, and 118 in DirectX 9. The DirectX 11 score is 59, DirectX 10 is 62, and DirectX 12 is 39. These numbers indicate a consistent performance profile across different graphics APIs.

When positioned against its nearest rivals in the database, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M sits at the 59th percentile of all GPUs. Its average score of 16351 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, which averages 16361, a mere 0.1% difference. It trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell by 0.3% (16408 average), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 by 0.4% (16415 average), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 by 0.9% (16504 average). This clustering suggests the 5600M is positioned in a highly competitive tier despite its mobile orientation.

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics occupies the 56th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals show a similar clustering pattern. It trails the AMD Radeon Vega 11 by 0.3% (14352 average), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN by 0.4% (14373 average), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 by 0.5% (14385 average). However, it edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti by 0.3% (14277 average). The delta between the two GPUs is stark: the AMD part's average score is 16351 versus 14315 for Intel, a gap of roughly 14%.

The Verdict

The data makes the case clearly. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the superior performer in every measurable way within this comparison. Its single head-to-head win in Geekbench OpenCL is decisive, with a 233.8% lead. The specification sheet reinforces this: the AMD part offers 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part offers 4 GB of LPDDR4X on a 128-bit bus with 68.26 GB/s bandwidth. The memory bandwidth difference alone is a factor of nearly six.

The AMD GPU also carries more compute resources. It has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Intel GPU has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The resulting pixel rate is 73.22 GPixel/s for AMD versus 39.60 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 183.0 GTexel/s versus 79.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.857 TFLOPS versus 2.534 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 11.71 TFLOPS versus 5.069 TFLOPS.

For users who prioritize compute-heavy tasks such as rendering, machine learning inference, or content creation, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the clear choice. Its higher memory capacity and bandwidth allow it to handle larger datasets and textures. The Intel Iris Xe MAX, with its lower power envelope of 25 W versus 50 W, is more suited to thin-and-light systems where battery life is prioritized over raw performance. However, the benchmark data shows no scenario where the Intel part wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, specifically the Navi 12 chip. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile) generation. The manufacturing process is 7 nm at TSMC. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics uses the Generation 12.1 architecture, specifically the DG1 chip, part of the Xe Graphics generation. It is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 95 mm².

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. AMD uses HBM2, which is a high-bandwidth stacked memory design. Intel uses LPDDR4X, a low-power DRAM typically found in mobile devices. This explains the massive bandwidth disparity. The AMD part also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The display output situation differs notably. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop implementation. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is listed with "No outputs," indicating it is designed as a secondary or companion GPU that renders through another device's display path.

The API support shows a minor difference. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.3. This is a small but meaningful distinction for developers targeting the latest Vulkan extensions.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several key differences beyond raw performance. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has a base clock of 822 MHz and a boost clock of 1144 MHz. The Intel Iris Xe MAX has a much lower base clock of 300 MHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 1650 MHz. This suggests the Intel part relies more heavily on boost behavior to reach its performance levels.

Memory clock speeds also differ. The AMD part runs memory at 770 MHz with 1540 Mbps effective data rate. The Intel part runs memory at 2133 MHz with 4.3 Gbps effective. Despite the higher clock, the Intel part's narrower 128-bit bus and LPDDR4X type result in far lower bandwidth.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX has a TDP of 25 W. Neither requires external power connectors, and both are integrated into the system as IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factors. The Intel part suggests a 200 W power supply, indicating its intended system context.

Release dates are close but not identical. The AMD part launched on June 14, 2020. The Intel part launched on October 30, 2020. Both are marked as end-of-life products. The Intel part has a predecessor listed as "Graphics" and a successor as "Alchemist," while the AMD part has no predecessor or successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher theoretical FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M delivers 5.857 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX delivers 2.534 TFLOPS. The AMD part is more than double.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has 394.2 GB/s bandwidth using 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The Intel Iris Xe MAX has 68.26 GB/s bandwidth using 4 GB of LPDDR4X on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their benchmark averages compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has an average benchmark score of 16351 across all recorded tests. The Intel Iris Xe MAX has an average of 14315 based on a single OpenCL test.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has a TDP of 50 W and no external power connectors. The Intel Iris Xe MAX has a TDP of 25 W and suggests a 200 W power supply for the system.

Q: How does the AMD part compare to its nearest rival?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M's average score of 16351 is only 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16361), making them effectively equivalent in aggregate performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 47783 is 233.8% higher than the Intel part's 14315. This indicates a massive advantage in general-purpose compute tasks that use OpenCL, which includes video encoding, physics simulations, and some machine learning workloads.

The AMD part's 8 GB of HBM2 memory with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth makes it suitable for workloads that are memory-bound. Large textures, high-resolution rendering, and data-heavy compute kernels will benefit from the six-fold bandwidth advantage. The 2048-bit bus allows data to move much faster between the GPU and memory.

The Intel Iris Xe MAX's lower TDP of 25 W means it could be a better fit for ultra-portable devices where thermal constraints are strict. Its 4 GB of LPDDR4X memory is sufficient for lighter tasks like casual gaming or basic media playback. The 1650 MHz boost clock shows it can ramp up when needed, but the underlying hardware limitations are apparent.

For users who need raw compute throughput, the AMD part is the only rational choice. Its 2560 shading units and 160 TMUs provide the parallel processing capacity that heavy graphics workloads demand. The Intel part, with 768 shading units and 48 TMUs, is a more modest offering.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M also has a more complete benchmark profile, suggesting it has been validated across a wider range of applications. The Intel Iris Xe MAX's single recorded benchmark limits the confidence in its overall capabilities.

In summary, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the dominant performer for any task that stresses the GPU. The Intel Iris Xe MAX is a lower-power alternative that trades significant performance for efficiency. The data does not show any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the AMD part.