AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs Intel UHD Graphics P750 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data points to a clear division of labor between these two graphics solutions, though the benchmark sample is limited to a single shared test. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 takes the sole head-to-head victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test, posting a score of 7333 against Intel’s 6554, a delta of 11.9%. That win positions the AMD part as the stronger compute-oriented option in the database’s measurements, at least for workloads that exercise OpenCL.

The Intel UHD Graphics P750, meanwhile, does not claim a single win in the head-to-head comparison. Its one recorded benchmark result, again Geekbench OpenCL, comes in at 6554, which is lower than every score listed for the AMD card. However, the Intel part’s architecture shows advantages in theoretical throughput metrics that do not translate into a benchmark victory here. Its pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s are both higher than the AMD card’s 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s, suggesting that in rasterization-heavy or texture-bound scenarios, the Intel solution could outperform its rival, even though the OpenCL compute test favors AMD.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 also holds the edge in raw FP32 compute, delivering 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus Intel’s 665.6 GFLOPS. This is a 2:1 advantage in single-precision floating-point work, which explains its dominance in the OpenCL benchmark. The Intel part counters with FP16 performance of 1,331.2 GFLOPS, which is higher than its own FP32 figure and also higher than AMD’s FP16 output of 1,248.3 GFLOPS, but the database shows no test that captures this advantage.

For use-case splits, the data suggests the AMD card is the pick for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or data processing. The Intel P750, being an integrated processor graphics solution, is better suited for systems where discrete graphics are not an option, and its higher pixel and texture rates hint at competence in basic display output and 2D or light 3D workloads. The benchmark results alone favor AMD, but the architectural profile gives Intel a niche in specific throughput-oriented scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is built on the Lexa chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a die size of 103 mm², yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses the Rocket Lake chip with Generation 12.1 architecture, fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. The database lists no transistor count or die size for the Intel part, so a direct density comparison is not possible.

Core configuration differs sharply. The AMD card has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations pipelines. The Intel P750 has 256 shading units but doubles the TMUs to 64 and doubles the ROPs to 32. This means Intel allocates more hardware to texture fetching and pixel output, while AMD concentrates on a larger shader array. Clock speeds reflect this: AMD runs at a base of 925 MHz with a boost of 1219 MHz, while Intel starts at a very low 350 MHz base but boosts to 1300 MHz, slightly higher than AMD’s boost. Memory access is another major split. AMD uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel’s memory is system-shared, meaning it draws from the host’s RAM with bandwidth described as system dependent. This gives AMD a massive, fixed memory bandwidth advantage, while Intel’s approach is flexible but variable.

Feature sets also diverge. AMD’s API support includes DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, the latter being a newer specification version. The Intel part also has a higher FP16-to-FP32 ratio at 2:1, whereas AMD runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning AMD’s FP16 and FP32 are equal, while Intel’s FP16 is double its FP32. Power characteristics differ enormously: AMD’s TDP is 65 W, and it requires a single-slot cooler with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. Intel’s TDP is just 15 W, and it is an integrated graphics processor with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, relying entirely on the motherboard for power and display output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two: Geekbench OpenCL. AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7333, Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6554, giving AMD an 11.9% advantage. This is a decisive win in compute performance, and it aligns with the FP32 throughput numbers, where AMD’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS nearly doubles Intel’s 665.6 GFLOPS. The OpenCL test likely stresses FP32 compute, which explains the outcome.

Looking at percentile placement, AMD sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while Intel sits at the 38th percentile. AMD’s average benchmark score is 7580, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 7333 because it also has a Vulkan score of 7827. Intel’s average is identical to its OpenCL score at 6554, since that is its only recorded benchmark. The gap between the averages, 7580 versus 6554, is roughly 15.6%, slightly wider than the head-to-head delta of 11.9%.

Nearest rival data adds context. AMD’s closest competitors include the AMD Radeon R7 250 (avg score 7557, 0.3% behind), Intel Arc A310 (7550, 0.4% behind), AMD Radeon 540 (7673, 1.2% ahead of the WX 3100), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, 1.4% behind). Intel’s nearest rivals are AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6581, 0.4% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513, 0.6% behind), AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, 0.9% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493, 0.9% behind). These lists show that AMD’s card competes in a higher performance tier, while Intel’s integrated solution sits among older mobile and low-end discrete parts.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in compute terms: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 outperforms the Intel UHD Graphics P750 in the only shared benchmark, with an 11.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. Its FP32 performance is nearly double, its memory bandwidth is fixed at 96.00 GB/s versus Intel’s system-dependent figure, and its average benchmark score is 15.6% higher. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the AMD card is the clear choice.

The Intel P750 has its own merits, but they are not captured in the benchmark wins. Its pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s are both more than double AMD’s figures, suggesting that in pixel-shading or texture-heavy scenarios, it could be faster, despite losing the compute test. Its 15 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient than AMD’s 65 W, and its system-shared memory means no dedicated VRAM allocation is needed. For system builders who must use integrated graphics, the P750 offers a viable path, especially with its higher DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support.

Who should pick which? Users running compute-intensive applications that leverage OpenCL, such as certain professional rendering or simulation tools, should choose the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 based on its 11.9% benchmark lead and superior FP32 throughput. Users needing a low-power, integrated solution for basic graphics, display output, or light 3D work, where the higher pixel and texture rates matter, can consider the Intel P750, but they must accept a measurable compute deficit. The verdict from the database is that AMD wins on measured performance, while Intel wins on integration and theoretical rasterization throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7333, while the Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6554, giving AMD an 11.9% lead.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: AMD delivers 1,248.3 GFLOPS, nearly double Intel’s 665.6 GFLOPS. Intel’s FP16 output of 1,331.2 GFLOPS is higher than AMD’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS, but no benchmark captures that advantage.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: AMD uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: Intel has a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s, both more than double AMD’s 19.50 GPixel/s and 39.01 GTexel/s.

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: AMD has a 65 W TDP and suggests a 250 W PSU. Intel has a 15 W TDP and is an integrated part with no PSU requirement.

Q: How do they rank against all GPUs?

A: AMD sits at the 41st percentile, while Intel sits at the 38th percentile. AMD’s average benchmark score is 7580, compared to Intel’s 6554.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every hardware specification. AMD uses a 14 nm process, Intel uses 14 nm+++. AMD’s chip is Lexa with GCN 4.0 architecture, Intel’s is Rocket Lake with Generation 12.1. AMD has 512 shading units, Intel has 256. AMD has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, Intel has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs. AMD’s base clock is 925 MHz with a boost of 1219 MHz, Intel’s base is 350 MHz with a boost of 1300 MHz.

Memory differs fundamentally: AMD has 4 GB GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, Intel has system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. AMD’s FP32 is 1,248.3 GFLOPS, Intel’s is 665.6 GFLOPS. AMD’s FP16 is 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1), Intel’s is 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1). AMD’s TDP is 65 W, Intel’s is 15 W. AMD is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, Intel is an IGP with no slot width, no connectors, and no PSU suggestion. AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, Intel uses a Ring Bus. AMD’s display outputs are 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, Intel’s are motherboard dependent. AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. AMD has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, Intel has no listed MSRP.