GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 Graphics and Intel UHD Graphics 710 are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions, but they split their benchmark wins almost perfectly down the middle. The AMD part, built on GCN 2.0 for Kaveri APUs, dominates in OpenCL compute workloads with a 48.3% lead, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710, based on Alder Lake’s Generation 12.2 architecture, turns the tables in Vulkan with a 36.8% advantage. With average benchmark scores of 3883 for the AMD and 3792 for the Intel, the two sit within 2.4% of each other overall, placing them at the 23rd and 22nd percentiles of all GPUs respectively. The practical takeaway is that neither is a gaming powerhouse; instead, the choice hinges on which API and workload profile matters more for your specific use case.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins decisively in OpenCL, scoring 5183 against the Intel’s 3496. That 48.3% margin is substantial, making the R5 the clear pick for any application that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, such as older video encoding tools, physics simulations, or productivity suites that offload tasks to the GPU. The data shows this is not a close contest, the AMD part delivers over 1.48 times the raw OpenCL throughput of the Intel solution.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins in Vulkan, scoring 4088 versus the AMD’s 2582. This 36.8% advantage is equally lopsided, but in the opposite direction. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead graphics API used in many current game engines and emulators, so the Intel part holds a meaningful edge for lightweight gaming or any workload built around Vulkan’s explicit multi-threading model. The Intel also offers a higher FP16 throughput at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1) compared to the AMD’s unspecified FP16 capability, suggesting better support for half-precision compute tasks.

In terms of raw specifications, the AMD counters with more shading units (256 vs 128), more texture mapping units (16 vs 8), and higher FP32 performance (388.1 GFLOPS vs 332.8 GFLOPS). The Intel fights back with twice the ROPs (8 vs 4) and a higher pixel rate (10.40 GPixel/s vs 3.032 GPixel/s), which translates to better fill-rate performance for rasterization-heavy scenes. The Intel also has a higher boost clock at 1300 MHz versus the AMD’s unspecified boost, though the AMD’s base clock is also not listed. Net result: the AMD is a compute-focused workhorse, while the Intel is more balanced toward modern graphics pipelines.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has an average benchmark score of 3883, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 3792. The AMD holds a 2.4% edge in this overall metric.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics trails the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 by 0.4% in average score (3883 vs 3898). It is also 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (3834) and 0.9% behind the Quadro K2000D (3919).

Q: What is the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s position relative to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 3792 on average, which is 0.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650’s 3823. It is also 1.1% behind the GeForce MX110 (3834) and 1.4% ahead of the GeForce GT 635M (3740).

Q: Which API does the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics handle better?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is significantly stronger in OpenCL, scoring 5183 compared to the Intel’s 3496, a 48.3% advantage. Its Vulkan score of 2582 is much lower, indicating a clear weakness in that API.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 support newer DirectX or Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This gives the Intel part a feature-level advantage in both APIs.

Q: What are the transistor counts for these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics contains 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 has no transistor or die size data listed in the specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics posts a score of 5183 against the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3496. That is a 48.3% delta, the largest gap between the two in either benchmark. The AMD’s 256 shading units and 16 TMUs, paired with its higher FP32 throughput of 388.1 GFLOPS, directly explain this dominance. For any OpenCL-based workload, be it image processing, scientific computing, or older game physics, the AMD part is unequivocally the stronger option, outperforming the Intel by nearly half again its score.

The Vulkan benchmark flips the script. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 4088, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics manages only 2582, giving the Intel a 36.8% lead. The Intel’s architecture, Generation 12.2, is designed for modern graphics APIs, and its higher ROP count (8 vs 4) and pixel rate (10.40 GPixel/s vs 3.032 GPixel/s) contribute to this result. The Intel also benefits from a boost clock of 1300 MHz, which the AMD lacks a listed equivalent for. In Vulkan-based games or compute applications, the Intel part is clearly superior, offering over 1.58 times the performance of the AMD.

When comparing these results to their nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics’ average score of 3883 puts it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898) and 1.3% ahead of the GeForce MX110 (3834). The Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3792 average is 0.8% behind the GeForce GTX 650 (3823) and 1.4% ahead of the GeForce GT 635M (3740). Both integrated GPUs perform in a narrow band around 3.8k points, but the distribution of wins across different APIs means that real-world performance will vary dramatically depending on the software environment.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is in the shading units: the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has 256, exactly double the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 128. The AMD also has 16 TMUs versus the Intel’s 8, which explains its 12.13 GTexel/s texture rate compared to the Intel’s 10.40 GTexel/s. However, the Intel wins on ROPs with 8 versus the AMD’s 4, and its pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s is more than three times the AMD’s 3.032 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics lists no base or boost clocks at all. The Intel’s FP32 performance is 332.8 GFLOPS, lower than the AMD’s 388.1 GFLOPS, but the Intel adds FP16 support at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1), which the AMD does not list. Both use system-shared memory with dependent bandwidth, so no advantage there.

The process nodes also differ: the AMD is built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Intel uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD’s die size is 245 mm² with 2,410 million transistors, yielding a density of 9.8M / mm², whereas the Intel has no listed die or transistor data. The bus interface for the AMD is IGP, while the Intel uses a Ring Bus. Both are IGP slot width with motherboard-dependent display outputs and a 15 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is based on GCN 2.0 architecture, specifically the Spectre SL chip, and belongs to the Kaveri generation of IGPs. Its predecessor is TeraScale 3 IGP, and its successor is GCN 3.0 IGP. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses Generation 12.2 architecture on the Alder Lake chip, belonging to the HD Graphics (Alder Lake) generation, with no predecessor or successor listed.

In terms of API support, the Intel part is more modern: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel’s Vulkan 1.4 support is a significant step ahead, likely contributing to its strong Vulkan benchmark showing. The AMD’s older GCN 2.0 architecture lacks the feature set for efficient modern API execution, which is why its Vulkan score lags so far behind.

The process technology difference is stark: 28 nm for the AMD versus 10 nm for the Intel. This gives the Intel a theoretical efficiency and density advantage, though the AMD’s larger die (245 mm²) houses more transistors (2,410 million) than the Intel’s unspecified count. The AMD’s transistor density of 9.8M / mm² is a concrete figure, but the Intel’s density is not provided. The Intel also has a defined clock strategy with base and boost, while the AMD does not list any clocks, suggesting the AMD’s performance is more dependent on the host system’s memory and cooling.

The Verdict

If your priority is OpenCL compute performance, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the only rational choice. Its 5183 OpenCL score beats the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3496 by 48.3%, and its higher shading unit count (256 vs 128) and FP32 throughput (388.1 GFLOPS vs 332.8 GFLOPS) make it the stronger raw compute engine. The data shows no contest in this domain, so for productivity apps that rely on OpenCL, the AMD part delivers clearly superior results.

If you need Vulkan support for modern games or compute, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins outright. Its 4088 Vulkan score is 36.8% ahead of the AMD’s 2582, and its support for Vulkan 1.4 (versus 1.2.170) ensures better compatibility with current and future software. The Intel also has a higher pixel rate (10.40 GPixel/s vs 3.032 GPixel/s) and more ROPs (8 vs 4), which helps in rasterization-heavy scenarios. For anyone building a basic HTPC or light-gaming rig around Vulkan titles, the Intel part is the better bet.

For general, API-agnostic use, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics holds a slim 2.4% average score lead (3883 vs 3792), but the Intel’s more modern feature set, DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4, and FP16 support, makes it the more future-proof option. The Intel’s 10 nm process also suggests better power efficiency, though both are rated at 15 W TDP. Ultimately, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the pick for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the pick for Vulkan-based gaming and modern API adoption. Choose based on your software, not the averages.