AMD Radeon Pro 560X vs Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 560X and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that occupy a similar performance tier, yet they achieve their positions through radically different designs. The AMD part is a discrete-style GPU built on a mature 14 nm process, while the Intel chip is a low-power Xe architecture part on 10 nm. The data shows that while they land within a few percentage points of each other in average benchmark scores, their architectural approaches and specific capabilities diverge sharply, making the choice between them dependent on the workload and platform constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results provide a clear, if limited, picture of the strengths of each part. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 14315 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's 9663. That is a decisive 32.5% margin in favor of Intel, indicating that for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the Iris Xe MAX is the substantially faster option. This is the single biggest performance gap between the two, and it defines Intel's primary advantage.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X has a broader benchmark profile. It has been tested in three different APIs — Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan — while the Intel part only has a recorded OpenCL result. The AMD card scores 18763 in Metal and 16819 in Vulkan, both of which are significantly higher than its own OpenCL score. This suggests that the Radeon Pro 560X is better optimized for graphics-centric APIs, particularly Metal, which is the primary API for macOS applications. The Intel part's lack of any Metal or Vulkan scores in the data means its performance in those APIs is unquantified, but its absence from those tests hints that its strengths are concentrated in general compute rather than graphics rendering.

In terms of overall standing, the AMD Radeon Pro 560X has an average benchmark score of 15082, placing it at the 57th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has an average score of 14315, placing it at the 56th percentile. The gap between their average scores is less than 6%, which is small enough that real-world performance differences in non-OpenCL workloads could easily flip the results. The AMD part wins on raw average score and on having a more complete set of benchmark results, while the Intel part wins decisively on the one metric where they are directly compared.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and processes. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X uses the Polaris 21 chip based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics uses the DG1 chip based on the Generation 12.1 architecture, built on Intel's own 10 nm process. Intel does not disclose the transistor count for this chip, but its die size is smaller at 95 mm².

The compute configurations differ significantly. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has fewer shading units at 768, fewer TMUs at 48, but more ROPs at 24. This different mix has direct consequences for throughput. The Intel part achieves a higher pixel rate of 39.60 GPixel/s compared to the AMD's 16.06 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate of 79.20 GTexel/s versus 64.26 GTexel/s. However, the AMD part has a higher FP32 throughput in its raw specification? No — actually the Intel part has higher FP32 at 2.534 TFLOPS versus 2.056 TFLOPS for AMD, and Intel also offers FP16 at 5.069 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while AMD's FP16 is 2.056 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is another key divergence. Both have 4 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the AMD uses GDDR5 at 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) delivering 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel uses LPDDR4X at 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective) providing only 68.26 GB/s. The AMD has a substantial 27% bandwidth advantage, which can matter in memory-bound scenarios. The Intel part compensates with a much lower power envelope of 25 W TDP versus the AMD's 75 W, and it supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the AMD is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a lopsided affair. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14315, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 9663, giving Intel a 32.5% lead. This is a massive margin that far exceeds the difference in their average scores, which are 14315 and 15082 respectively. The fact that Intel wins by such a wide margin in OpenCL, but loses on average score, indicates that AMD's strength lies elsewhere — namely in the Metal and Vulkan tests where Intel has no recorded results.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the data provides additional context. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X has an average score of 15082, which is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti (15063) and 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15171). It also trails the RTX 3050 OEM by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon 680M by 1.2%. This places it in a very tight competitive cluster where a 1% swing can change the ranking. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics, with an average score of 14315, is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352) and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14277). It also trails the TITAN by 0.4% and the RX Vega 11 by 0.5%. Intel's cluster is similarly tight, but at a slightly lower absolute level.

The head-to-head result should be interpreted carefully. A 32.5% win in OpenCL is not a universal victory for Intel. It reflects Intel's architectural focus on compute throughput, as evidenced by its higher FP32 and FP16 figures. However, for graphics workloads that rely on Metal or Vulkan, the AMD part's higher scores in those APIs suggest it would likely prevail, though direct data is unavailable. The data only supports a definitive statement about OpenCL performance, where Intel is clearly superior.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560X has an average benchmark score of 15082, which is higher than the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics' score of 14315. The AMD part also ranks slightly higher at the 57th percentile versus the 56th percentile for Intel.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Iris Xe MAX in OpenCL?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14315 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to 9663 for the AMD Radeon Pro 560X, giving Intel a 32.5% advantage in that specific test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 560X have better memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the AMD part has 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory, while the Intel part has 68.26 GB/s from LPDDR4X. Both use a 128-bit bus, but AMD's memory runs at 5.9 Gbps effective versus 4.3 Gbps for Intel.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a TDP of 25 W, which is one-third of the AMD Radeon Pro 560X's 75 W TDP. Intel also lists a recommended power supply of 200 W, while AMD lists no PSU recommendation.

Q: What API support differences exist between the two?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are there benchmark results for both in any API other than OpenCL?

A: No. The AMD Radeon Pro 560X has results for Geekbench Metal (18763), OpenCL (9663), and Vulkan (16819). The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics only has a Geekbench OpenCL result (14315) in the data.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation for different use cases. If your workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the obvious choice. Its 32.5% lead in that benchmark is the largest performance gap between the two, and its higher FP32 (2.534 TFLOPS) and FP16 (5.069 TFLOPS) throughput reinforce that compute is its strength. The Intel part also has a major power advantage at 25 W versus 75 W, making it far more suitable for thin-and-light systems where thermal headroom is scarce.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560X is the better pick for graphics-centric applications, particularly those that use Metal or Vulkan. Its Metal score of 18763 and Vulkan score of 16819 are both far above its own OpenCL result, and they represent the highest scores in its benchmark suite. The absence of any Metal or Vulkan data for Intel means you cannot confirm its performance in those APIs, but the AMD part's demonstrated strength there, combined with higher memory bandwidth (94.08 GB/s vs 68.26 GB/s), makes it the safer bet for gaming or Mac-centric workloads. Its higher average score of 15082 also places it ahead of the Intel part in overall standing.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the decision hinges on the platform and the primary software environment. On a Mac where Metal is the native API, the Radeon Pro 560X is the data-backed choice. On a low-power Windows or Linux system where OpenCL compute is the priority, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics offers a better performance-per-watt profile. The Intel part's support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 also gives it a slight API feature edge, while AMD counters with a more mature GCN architecture and a higher transistor count.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 560X | Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Generation 12.1 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 95 mm² |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | Not disclosed |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1650 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) | 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | LPDDR4X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 94.08 GB/s | 68.26 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.06 GPixel/s | 39.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 64.26 GTexel/s | 79.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.056 TFLOPS | 2.534 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.056 TFLOPS (1:1) | 5.069 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 25 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2018-07-15 | 2020-10-30 |

| Successor | None | Alchemist |