AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive advantage for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 in every directly comparable test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 17,642 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's 9,082, a delta of 48.5 percent in favor of the discrete card. That is not a narrow margin; it represents nearly double the compute throughput in a widely used cross-platform benchmark. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 18,703 versus the Intel chip's 5,258, a 71.9 percent deficit for the integrated solution. The Intel part wins zero head-to-head tests in this comparison, while the AMD card wins both.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story, however. The Intel Iris Pro P580 posts an average of 7,170 across its two recorded tests, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 averages 6,330 across a broader suite of ten tests. This inversion occurs because the AMD card's Passmark scores, particularly the DirectX 9 result of 56 and the G2D score of 646, drag its average downward, while the Intel part only has two high-scoring Geekbench entries to contribute. The percentiles reflect this mixed picture: the Intel chip sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the AMD card sits at the 37th percentile, meaning they occupy nearly the same position in the overall distribution despite the massive OpenCL and Vulkan deltas.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for where each part truly lands. The Intel Iris Pro P580's average score of 7,170 places it within 0.2 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157) and 0.5 percent below the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203). The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100's average of 6,330 sits within 0.1 percent of the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327) and 0.8 percent above the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282). The database suggests these two parts belong to different performance tiers in raw compute, yet their percentile rankings are almost identical, which raises questions about how benchmark composition influences perceived value.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 uses the Skylake GT4e chip built on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm+ process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 employs the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The node difference is slight, but the transistor budgets diverge sharply: AMD reports 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for the P580, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the data.

The memory subsystems could hardly be more different. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. The AMD card packs 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory arrangement gives the Radeon Pro WX 4100 a structural advantage in workloads that repeatedly access the same data, since it does not compete with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The Intel chip's shared memory approach means its effective bandwidth depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

Compute resources also differ in configuration. The Intel P580 fields 576 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and only 9 raster output units. The AMD WX 4100 counters with 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The shading unit advantage for AMD is substantial, nearly doubling the Intel count, while Intel holds a slight TMU lead. The ROP gap matters for pixel fill rate: AMD achieves 19.22 GPixel/s versus Intel's 9.000 GPixel/s, a difference that shows up in rasterization-heavy scenes. Texture rate is closer, with AMD at 76.86 GTexel/s versus Intel's 72.00 GTexel/s. Floating point performance tells a similar story to shading units: AMD delivers 2.460 TFLOPS in FP32, while Intel manages 1,152.0 GFLOPS. For FP16, AMD sustains 2.460 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while Intel reaches 2.304 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, meaning the Intel part halves its FP32 rate to achieve that figure.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Intel chip runs at a 350 MHz base with a 1,000 MHz boost, while the AMD card operates at 1,125 MHz base and 1,201 MHz boost. The AMD part's higher clocks compound its shading unit advantage. Power consumption reflects the form factor difference: the Intel IGP draws 15 W, while the AMD discrete card draws 50 W. Both parts are marked end-of-life in the database, with Intel releasing in 2015 and AMD in 2016. Interface and output capabilities differ as well: the Intel chip uses a Ring Bus interface with motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. For raw compute throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the unambiguous winner, leading by 48.5 percent in OpenCL and 71.9 percent in Vulkan. Anyone running compute-heavy tasks, such as rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated analysis, should favor the AMD card based on these measurements. The dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a structural advantage for datasets that exceed what a shared memory system can efficiently handle.

The Intel Iris Pro P580, however, posts a higher average benchmark score of 7,170 versus 6,330, driven by its two strong Geekbench results. For users constrained to a 15 W power envelope within an integrated graphics environment, the Intel part delivers respectable OpenCL performance without requiring a separate card. The 39th percentile ranking versus the AMD card's 37th suggests that, in the broader database context, the two are nearly equivalent in overall standing despite their different benchmark profiles.

The AMD card's launch MSRP is 399 USD. Neither part is currently in production, so any selection today involves used or existing inventory. The decision comes down to whether the workload favors the AMD card's compute density and dedicated memory or whether the Intel part's integrated form factor and lower power draw suit a specific system constraint. The benchmark data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a workload-specific one.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Intel Iris Pro P580 uses a Skylake GT4e chip with Generation 9.0 architecture on a 14 nm+ process at Intel's foundry, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses a Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. AMD discloses 3,000 million transistors, a 123 mm² die, and a density of 24.4M per mm²; Intel lists none of these.

Clock speeds differ: Intel runs at 350 MHz base and 1,000 MHz boost, while AMD runs at 1,125 MHz base and 1,201 MHz boost. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while AMD uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Compute units differ: Intel has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 9 ROPs; AMD has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 9.000 GPixel/s for Intel and 19.22 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rate is 72.00 GTexel/s versus 76.86 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,152.0 GFLOPS versus 2.460 TFLOPS. FP16 is 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and form factor differ: Intel is an IGP at 15 W, while AMD is a single-slot card at 50 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Interface differs: Ring Bus versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: motherboard dependent versus four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions: AMD measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height; Intel has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ: August 2015 for Intel, November 2016 for AMD. The AMD card has a predecessor (Radeon Pro GCN) and successor (Radeon Pro Vega); Intel lists neither. API support is nearly identical: both support DirectX 12 (12_1 for Intel, 12_0 for AMD), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642 against the Intel Iris Pro P580's 9,082, a 48.5 percent advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The AMD card scores 18,703 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Intel part scores 5,258, making the AMD card 71.9 percent faster.

Q: Do the average benchmark scores agree with the head-to-head results?

A: No. The Intel part averages 7,170 across its two tests, while the AMD card averages 6,330 across ten tests, placing the Intel chip at the 39th percentile and the AMD card at the 37th percentile.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P580 uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The Intel IGP draws 15 W, while the AMD discrete card draws 50 W and carries a suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Q: Are both parts still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database, with the Intel part released in August 2015 and the AMD part released in November 2016.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in every directly comparable benchmark recorded in the database. Its OpenCL score of 17,642 more than doubles the Intel part's 9,082, and its Vulkan score of 18,703 more than triples the Intel's 5,258. The AMD card's 2.460 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 1,024 shading units, and dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth make it the clear choice for compute workloads that tax memory bandwidth and parallel throughput. Its 19.22 GPixel/s pixel rate also gives it an edge in rasterization-heavy tasks.

The Intel Iris Pro P580 wins in no head-to-head benchmark, but its average score of 7,170 exceeds the AMD card's 6,330, driven by consistent Geekbench results. Its 15 W power draw makes it suitable for systems where a discrete card is not an option. The 576 shading units and 72 TMUs provide capable integrated performance, and the 2.304 TFLOPS FP16 output with a 2:1 ratio indicates some efficiency in half-precision workloads, though the AMD card's 1:1 FP16 ratio at 2.460 TFLOPS is stronger. For users who cannot accommodate a 50 W single-slot card, the Intel part remains a functional integrated alternative with a higher average benchmark score.