AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 represent two very different approaches to mobile and workstation graphics. The AMD part is a discrete, 65 W card built for professional workloads, while the Intel part is a 15 W integrated GPU embedded in a Skylake processor. Benchmark results show a split decision: the Intel wins OpenCL compute by a solid margin, but the AMD wins Vulkan by an even larger one. This analysis breaks down what those numbers mean for real-world use, based solely on the data provided.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has a higher average benchmark score of 7,580, compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580’s 7,170. This places the AMD at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel sits at the 39th percentile.

Q: How large is the AMD’s lead in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,827 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 scores 5,258. This is a delta of 48.9% in favor of AMD.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel chip outperform the AMD card?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,082, against the AMD’s 7,333. The delta is -19.3% from AMD’s perspective, meaning Intel is ahead by that percentage.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU based on average score?

A: The AMD’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 250, which scores 7,557 (0.3% difference). The Intel’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE, scoring 7,171 (0% difference).

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher shading unit count?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has 576 shading units, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 512 shading units. However, the AMD has a significantly higher peak pixel rate at 19.50 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 9.000 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Lexa chip, and is part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, in contrast, uses the Generation 9.0 architecture, based on the Skylake GT4e chip, and is part of the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation. It is built on Intel’s 14 nm+ process, though its transistor count and die size are not listed in the data.

A key structural difference is the memory subsystem. The AMD uses dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and fixed bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The Intel uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is System Dependent and tied to the host system’s RAM. This fundamental difference affects how the two GPUs handle memory-intensive tasks.

The compute resources also differ. The AMD has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Intel has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, but only 9 ROPs. This configuration gives the Intel a higher texture rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs 39.01 GTexel/s) but a lower pixel rate (9.000 GPixel/s vs 19.50 GPixel/s). The FP32 performance is close, with AMD at 1,248.3 GFLOPS and Intel at 1,152.0 GFLOPS. However, the Intel has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, achieving 2.304 TFLOPS, while the AMD has a 1:1 ratio at 1,248.3 GFLOPS.

Power and integration are major differentiators. The AMD is a discrete card with a 65 W TDP, a single-slot design, and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. It connects via PCIe 3.0 x8. The Intel is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, using a Ring Bus interface, and its display outputs are Motherboard Dependent. The AMD offers specific display outputs: 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, though the Intel supports DX 12_1 while AMD supports 12_0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a clear split. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is the decisive winner. It scores 9,082, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,333. That is a 19.3% gap in Intel’s favor. This is a substantial lead, particularly for a 15 W integrated part. The AMD’s average score of 7,580 is pulled down by its lower OpenCL result, but its Vulkan score of 7,827 is significantly higher.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result dramatically. The AMD scores 7,827, while the Intel scores 5,258. The delta is 48.9% in AMD’s favor. This is nearly half again as fast as the Intel part in this API. This is a much larger margin than the Intel’s OpenCL lead. The data suggests that the AMD’s GCN architecture has a significant advantage in Vulkan workloads, while the Intel’s Generation 9.0 architecture is better suited to OpenCL compute tasks.

Looking at the broader context, the AMD’s average score of 7,580 places it just ahead of the Intel’s 7,170. The AMD’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which scores 7,472 (1.4% behind AMD) and the AMD Radeon 540, which scores 7,673 (1.2% ahead). The Intel’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 at 7,222 (0.7% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 (0.5% ahead). These numbers show that both GPUs are in a similar performance tier overall, but with very different strengths depending on the workload.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on the application. If the workload is dominated by Vulkan rendering, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the stronger option, with a 48.9% lead in that specific benchmark. This is a massive advantage, and it suggests that Vulkan-based games or applications will run significantly better on the AMD. The AMD also has a higher average benchmark score overall, 7,580 vs 7,170, and a higher percentile ranking (41st vs 39th).

However, for OpenCL compute tasks, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is the better performer. Its 9,082 OpenCL score is 19.3% higher than the AMD’s. This makes the Intel part a more compelling choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration. The Intel also has a lower TDP of 15 W, making it far more power-efficient than the AMD’s 65 W.

The choice comes down to the specific API and workload. For a professional user primarily using Vulkan, the AMD is the obvious pick. For a user focused on OpenCL compute in a low-power integrated environment, the Intel is more suitable. The AMD’s dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is a practical advantage for graphics tasks, while the Intel’s System Shared memory is more flexible but dependent on system RAM. Both are end-of-life products, but the data shows they serve different niches effectively.

Specification Differences

The following are the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the provided data:

• Architecture: AMD uses GCN 4.0; Intel uses Generation 9.0.
• Process Node: AMD uses 14 nm; Intel uses 14 nm+.
• Transistors: AMD has 2,200 million; Intel is not listed.
• Die Size: AMD is 103 mm²; Intel is not listed.
• Base Clock: AMD is 925 MHz; Intel is 350 MHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD is 1219 MHz; Intel is 1000 MHz.
• Memory Size: AMD is 4 GB GDDR5; Intel is System Shared.
• Memory Bus Width: AMD is 128 bit; Intel is System Shared.
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD is 96.00 GB/s; Intel is System Dependent.
• Shading Units: AMD has 512; Intel has 576.
• TMUs: AMD has 32; Intel has 72.
• ROPs: AMD has 16; Intel has 9.
• Pixel Rate: AMD is 19.50 GPixel/s; Intel is 9.000 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: AMD is 39.01 GTexel/s; Intel is 72.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32: AMD is 1,248.3 GFLOPS; Intel is 1,152.0 GFLOPS.
• FP16: AMD is 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1); Intel is 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: AMD is 65 W; Intel is 15 W.
• Slot Width: AMD is Single-slot; Intel is IGP.
• Bus Interface: AMD is PCIe 3.0 x8; Intel is Ring Bus.
• Display Outputs: AMD is 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a; Intel is Motherboard Dependent.
• Release Date: AMD is 2017-06-11; Intel is 2015-08-31.
• Launch MSRP: AMD is 199 USD; Intel is not listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins in scenarios that demand high pixel throughput and modern graphics API performance. Its 19.50 GPixel/s pixel rate is more than double the Intel’s 9.000 GPixel/s, making it better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks. Its 48.9% lead in the Vulkan benchmark is the single largest performance gap in the comparison, indicating a strong advantage for Vulkan-based games and applications. The dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with fixed 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent performance without relying on system RAM. This makes the AMD a better choice for discrete workstation tasks where graphics rendering is the priority.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. Its 9,082 OpenCL score is 19.3% ahead of the AMD, making it the superior part for OpenCL acceleration. The higher TMU count (72 vs 32) gives it a texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s, nearly double the AMD’s 39.01 GTexel/s, which benefits texture-heavy compute tasks. Its 15 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, suitable for ultra-low-power integrated systems. The 2:1 FP16 ratio (2.304 TFLOPS) also provides double the half-precision throughput of the AMD, which can be leveraged in certain compute workloads that support FP16. The Intel wins in scenarios where power efficiency and OpenCL compute performance are more important than raw graphics rasterization and Vulkan support.