AMD Radeon R5 Graphics vs Intel HD Graphics P4600 Comparison

Intel HD Graphics P4600 and AMD Radeon R5 Graphics are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The data in the benchmark database shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the AMD part holding a decisive advantage in compute workloads, yet the Intel part offers specific architectural traits that matter in certain system contexts. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, interprets the percentile rankings, and breaks down where each chip's limited feature set still finds a use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this benchmark, AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, while Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389. The delta between them is -34.6%, indicating that the Intel part trails the AMD part by roughly a third in this workload. This is a substantial margin, not a marginal difference. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics delivers 52.9% more raw compute score than the Intel solution, translating into significantly faster execution of OpenCL-accelerated tasks such as image processing, video encoding filters, and physics simulations.

Looking at the broader context of the nearest rivals confirms the positioning. Intel HD Graphics P4600 sits at the 20th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 3389. Its closest competitors include NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (avg score 3431, delta -1.2%), NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (avg score 3434, delta -1.3%), Intel HD Graphics 530 (avg score 3332, delta 1.7%), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (avg score 3316, delta 2.2%). The data shows that the P4600 is essentially on par with these parts, within a narrow band of roughly ±2%. It is not a standout performer in its class; it sits right in the middle of a cluster of similarly performing integrated and low-end discrete GPUs.

AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, by contrast, holds the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 3883 (averaging its OpenCL and Vulkan results). Its nearest rivals are NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (avg score 3898, delta -0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (avg score 3919, delta -0.9%), NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (avg score 3930, delta -1.2%), and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (avg score 3834, delta 1.3%). While the percentile ranking is only three points higher than the Intel part, the absolute average score is 14.6% higher, a meaningful gap. The AMD part is also more consistent across benchmark types, as evidenced by its Vulkan score of 2582, a test that the Intel part does not have a recorded result for.

The head-to-head delta of -34.6% is the single most important number in this comparison. It indicates that in pure compute throughput, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is in a different tier entirely. However, the Intel part does have one advantage in the raw specs: its texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s for AMD. This suggests that in texture-bound workloads, the Intel part could potentially close the gap, though no direct benchmark is available to verify this. The pixel rates also favor AMD (3.032 GPixel/s vs 2.400 GPixel/s), but the texture rate disparity is notable.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the superior compute performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark decisively, holds a higher average benchmark score (3883 vs 3389), and achieves a higher percentile ranking (23rd vs 20th). For any user whose workload relies on OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration, the AMD part is the clear choice. The 34.6% lead in OpenCL is not a marginal edge; it is a generational gap that will be felt in every compute-heavy application.

However, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is not without merit. Its texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s is nearly double that of the AMD part, indicating that it may handle texture-heavy scenarios, such as certain legacy game rendering paths or 2D compositing, more efficiently. Additionally, the Intel part consumes more power (84 W TDP vs 15 W TDP), which suggests it was designed for a different class of system—likely desktop workstations with ample cooling, whereas the AMD part is a low-power IGP for mobile or compact platforms. The Intel part also supports Vulkan 1.0, while AMD supports Vulkan 1.2.170, but the Intel part lacks a recorded Vulkan benchmark, so its real-world Vulkan performance is unverified.

Who should pick which? If the priority is compute performance in OpenCL—for tasks like rendering, simulation, or data processing—the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the only rational choice. If the priority is raw texture throughput or the user is constrained to an Intel platform with a Ring Bus interface, the P4600 may suffice, but it will deliver roughly a third less compute performance. The data does not support any other conclusion: the AMD part wins on performance, while the Intel part only wins on specific spec sheets.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 in Geekbench OpenCL, while Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389. The AMD part leads by 34.6%.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: Intel HD Graphics P4600 is at the 20th percentile of all GPUs, while AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is at the 23rd percentile. This places both in the lower quartile of overall GPU performance.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: Intel HD Graphics P4600 has an average benchmark score of 3389 (based on its single OpenCL result). AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has an average benchmark score of 3883, averaging its OpenCL score of 5183 and Vulkan score of 2582.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics P4600 have a Vulkan benchmark result?

A: No. The database only records a Geekbench OpenCL result for the Intel part. The AMD part has both OpenCL and Vulkan results, with the Vulkan score being 2582.

Q: Which GPU has the higher texture fill rate?

A: Intel HD Graphics P4600 has a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s, which is significantly higher than AMD Radeon R5 Graphics's 12.13 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: Intel HD Graphics P4600 has a TDP of 84 W, while AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a TDP of 15 W. The AMD part is substantially more power-efficient on paper.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. Intel HD Graphics P4600 is built on a 22 nm process at Intel's foundry, while AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel chip is called Haswell GT2, and the AMD chip is called Spectre SL. The Intel part has 160 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 2 raster operation units (ROPs). The AMD part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This means AMD has 60% more shading units and double the ROPs, but Intel has 25% more TMUs.

Clock speeds also differ: Intel lists a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while AMD does not list base or boost clocks in the data. The pixel rate is 2.400 GPixel/s for Intel and 3.032 GPixel/s for AMD, favoring AMD by 26.3%. The texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s for Intel and 12.13 GTexel/s for AMD, favoring Intel by 97.9%. FP32 compute is nearly identical: 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel and 388.1 GFLOPS for AMD, a difference of just 1.1% in AMD's favor.

The TDP difference is stark: 84 W for Intel versus 15 W for AMD. Both use "System Shared" memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The bus interface is "Ring Bus" for Intel and "IGP" for AMD. Both have motherboard-dependent display outputs. The AMD part lists a transistor count of 2,410 million, a die size of 245 mm², and a transistor density of 9.8M / mm², while the Intel part has no such data listed. The release dates also differ, with Intel launching on May 31, 2013, and AMD on September 16, 2014.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is significant. Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses the Generation 7.5 architecture, with the chip codenamed Haswell GT2. This is part of the "HD Graphics-W (Haswell)" generation, built on Intel's 22 nm process. AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses GCN 2.0 architecture, with the chip codenamed Spectre SL, part of the "GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri)" generation, built on GlobalFoundries' 28 nm process. The process node difference (22 nm vs 28 nm) partly explains the TDP disparity, with Intel's smaller node allowing higher clock speeds at similar power, though AMD's lower TDP indicates a more conservative power envelope.

The shading unit counts reflect the architectural philosophies: AMD's GCN architecture uses a larger number of simpler cores (256), while Intel's Generation 7.5 uses fewer, more complex execution units (160). The FP32 output is nearly identical despite this difference, suggesting the per-core efficiency is higher on the Intel side. The texture units tell a different story: Intel has 20 TMUs versus AMD's 16, and the texture rate difference (24.00 vs 12.13 GTexel/s) is disproportionate, indicating Intel's texture units are more efficient or operate at higher clocks.

API support differs as well. Intel supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a more modern API stack, particularly the Vulkan version, which is 0.2.170 newer than Intel's 1.0. The AMD part also has a stated predecessor (TeraScale 3 IGP) and successor (GCN 3.0 IGP), while the Intel part has neither listed. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins in raw compute performance, as demonstrated by the OpenCL benchmark. The 34.6% lead translates into faster execution of any OpenCL-accelerated workload, including video transcoding, image filtering, and general-purpose GPU computing. The Vulkan support (1.2.170) and a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 2582 indicate that it can handle modern Vulkan-based applications, which is a category where the Intel part has no recorded data. The higher FP32 output (388.1 GFLOPS) and pixel rate (3.032 GPixel/s) also favor AMD for pixel-heavy rendering tasks. The 4 ROPs versus Intel's 2 ROPs suggest better fill rate performance for final framebuffer operations.

Intel HD Graphics P4600 wins in texture throughput, with a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s versus AMD's 12.13 GTexel/s. This is a 97.9% advantage, meaning that workloads which are texture-bound—such as certain 3D rendering pipelines that sample many textures per pixel—could perform significantly better on the Intel part despite its lower overall compute score. The higher TDP (84 W vs 15 W) also indicates that the Intel part may be designed for sustained performance in a desktop environment with active cooling, whereas the AMD part is likely throttled in a thin-and-light or fanless system. The Intel part's FP32 output is nearly identical to AMD's (384.0 vs 388.1 GFLOPS), so in pure compute terms, the two are essentially matched, but the texture rate is the deciding factor for specific workloads.

In practical terms, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the better choice for any user who needs modern API support (Vulkan 1.2.170, OpenGL 4.6) and has compute-heavy tasks. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 is the better choice for users who need maximum texture throughput or who are locked into an Intel platform with a Ring Bus interface. The data does not suggest any scenario where the Intel part wins on compute performance, but the texture rate advantage and the higher TDP (which implies more thermal headroom for sustained clocks) are the only areas where it holds a statistical edge. For most users, the AMD part's 34.6% OpenCL lead will be the deciding factor.