AMD Radeon R5 Graphics vs Intel HD Graphics 530 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two integrated graphics processors, with the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics taking both recorded head-to-head victories. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD part scores 5183 against Intel's 3550, a 46% advantage. The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where AMD posts 2582 versus Intel's 1422, an 81.6% lead. These are not marginal differences; the AMD solution wins by substantial margins in both compute API scenarios.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 does hold one unique advantage in the recorded data: it has a Geekbench Metal score of 5025, a test the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics does not appear in. This means the Intel part has a verified path for Apple-oriented or Metal-based workloads, while the AMD part has no recorded Metal performance at all. For users working in environments where Metal is the primary API, the Intel solution is the only one with data to support it.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics averages 3883, which places it in the 23rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel HD Graphics 530 averages 3332, sitting in the 20th percentile. The AMD part is therefore both faster on average and ranked slightly higher in the overall distribution, though both sit in the lower quartile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level solutions by modern standards.

The wins break down as 2 for AMD and 0 for Intel in direct head-to-head comparisons. The pattern is consistent: AMD wins the OpenCL compute test and wins the Vulkan test by an even larger margin. Intel's only recorded advantage comes from the Metal benchmark, where no direct AMD comparison exists in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses the GCN 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The chip is designated Spectre SL and belongs to the Kaveri generation of AMD integrated graphics. The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm+ process at Intel's own foundry, with the Skylake GT2 die.

The die sizes differ substantially. AMD's Spectre SL measures 245 mm² with 2,410 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 9.8 million per square millimeter. The Intel Skylake GT2 die is much smaller at 123 mm², though the database does not record a transistor count for Intel's chip, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the data.

Shader resources are configured differently. The AMD part carries 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. Intel's HD Graphics 530 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. This creates an interesting split: AMD has more shading units and one additional ROP, while Intel has more texture units. The texture rate reflects this, with Intel reaching 22.80 GTexel/s against AMD's 12.13 GTexel/s, a significant advantage in texture-heavy workloads. However, AMD's pixel rate of 3.032 GPixel/s edges out Intel's 2.850 GPixel/s, indicating slightly better fill-rate throughput at the pixel level.

Compute throughput is close but favors AMD. The Radeon R5 Graphics delivers 388.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the HD Graphics 530 delivers 364.8 GFLOPS. Intel does have a recorded FP16 capability of 729.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the AMD part has no FP16 data recorded. Clock behavior also differs: Intel lists a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, while AMD's clocks are not recorded in the database, only that memory is system shared.

Both parts use system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, and both are integrated graphics processors with motherboard-dependent display outputs. The bus interface differs, with AMD listed as IGP and Intel as Ring Bus. API support shows Intel with a slight edge in DirectX, supporting 12 (12_1) against AMD's 12 (12_0), and Intel supports Vulkan 1.3 against AMD's 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the first direct comparison in the database. AMD's Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, while Intel's HD Graphics 530 scores 3550. The 46% delta is substantial for two integrated solutions aimed at similar power envelopes. This result aligns with the raw compute specifications: AMD's 388.1 GFLOPS FP32 output is modestly higher than Intel's 364.8 GFLOPS, but the OpenCL score gap is far larger than the raw FLOP difference would suggest. This indicates that AMD's GCN architecture extracts more practical compute performance from its hardware in OpenCL workloads than Intel's Generation 9.0 design.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided. AMD scores 2582 against Intel's 1422, a delta of 81.6%. This near-doubling of performance in Vulkan shows a pronounced architectural advantage for AMD in this API. The Vulkan test typically stresses driver overhead and low-level hardware access, and the data indicates AMD's implementation handles these workloads far more efficiently. Intel's 192 shading units and higher texture rate do not translate into Vulkan compute wins; the AMD part's larger shader count and GCN design prove decisive.

Intel's Metal score of 5025 is worth examining in context. It is higher than AMD's OpenCL score of 5183 by a narrow margin, suggesting the Intel part is capable of competitive compute performance in the right API environment. However, since there is no AMD Metal result in the database, this cannot be framed as a direct victory. The Intel part also has a recorded Vulkan score of 1422, which is its weakest result, and an OpenCL score of 3550, which is its second weakest. The pattern suggests Intel's performance varies significantly by API, while AMD's two recorded scores are both competitive.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. AMD's 3883 average is 16.5% higher than Intel's 3332. The nearest rivals for each part also tell a story about positioning. AMD's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 at 3898, a 0.4% difference, while the GeForce MX110 trails at 3834, 1.3% behind AMD. Intel's closest rival is the GeForce GT 730M at 3316, 0.5% ahead, and the GeForce 920M at 3287, 1.4% behind. Both parts sit in a cluster of older discrete and integrated solutions, but AMD sits at a slightly higher performance tier.

The Verdict

The database points to the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics as the stronger choice for general compute workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score, and ranks in a higher percentile among all GPUs. The OpenCL advantage of 46% and the Vulkan advantage of 81.6% are decisive. Users running OpenCL-based applications, Vulkan workloads, or any compute-oriented task that relies on these APIs should favor the AMD part based on the recorded data.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 is the appropriate selection only in scenarios where Metal is the required API. Its Metal score of 5025 is the highest recorded result for either part in any test, and AMD has no Metal data at all. For macOS environments, iOS development, or any workflow that mandates Metal, the Intel solution is the only one with verified performance. Outside that specific use case, the data does not favor Intel.

Both parts are end-of-life products. AMD's Radeon R5 Graphics launched in September 2014, while Intel's HD Graphics 530 launched in August 2015. Both carry a 15 W TDP, making them comparable in power draw. The AMD part has a slight edge in FP32 compute, pixel rate, and shading units, while Intel counters with more texture units, higher texture rate, and FP16 support. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The percentile rankings place both in the lower quarter of all GPUs, so neither should be viewed as a high-performance solution. AMD sits at the 23rd percentile, Intel at the 20th. The practical takeaway is that the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the better-rounded integrated GPU for compute tasks across OpenCL and Vulkan, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 serves a narrower Metal-centric role. For most users, the data supports choosing AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Intel HD Graphics 530's 3550 by 46%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: AMD leads with 2582 against Intel's 1422, a delta of 81.6%, the largest margin in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 530 have any benchmark where it excels?

A: Yes, it records a Geekbench Metal score of 5025, the highest single-test result for either part, and AMD has no Metal score in the database.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has 256 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 has 192 shading units.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: AMD averages 3883 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 23rd percentile, while Intel averages 3332, placing it in the 20th percentile.

Q: Which processor has higher texture throughput?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 530 reaches 22.80 GTexel/s with 24 TMUs, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics reaches 12.13 GTexel/s with 16 TMUs.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Architecture: AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses GCN 2.0 on a 28 nm process; Intel HD Graphics 530 uses Generation 9.0 on a 14 nm+ process, manufactured by Intel.
• Process node specifics differ at the foundry level: AMD at GlobalFoundries at 28 nm, Intel at Intel at 14 nm+.
• Transistor count is 2,410 million for AMD at 245 mm² with 9.8M per square millimeter density; Intel lists 123 mm² die size with no recorded transistor count.
• Base and boost clocks are recorded for Intel at 350 MHz and 950 MHz; AMD's clocks are not recorded.
• Shading units: 256 for AMD, 192 for Intel.
• TMUs: 16 for AMD, 24 for Intel.
• ROPs: 4 for AMD, 3 for Intel.
• Pixel rate: 3.032 GPixel/s for AMD, 2.850 GPixel/s for Intel.
• Texture rate: 12.13 GTexel/s for AMD, 22.80 GTexel/s for Intel.
• FP32 performance: 388.1 GFLOPS for AMD, 364.8 GFLOPS for Intel.
• FP16 performance: not recorded for AMD, 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1) for Intel.
• Bus interface: IGP for AMD, Ring Bus for Intel.
• DirectX support: 12 (12_0) for AMD, 12 (12_1) for Intel.
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 for AMD, 1.3 for Intel.
• Release date: September 16, 2014 for AMD, August 31, 2015 for Intel.
• Predecessor: TeraScale 3 IGP for AMD, not recorded for Intel.
• Successor: GCN 3.0 IGP for AMD, not recorded for Intel.
• Production status: End-of-life for both, with no launch MSRP recorded for either part.