AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs Intel HD Graphics 630 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly across the two graphics solutions, with the AMD Radeon R5 M230 taking the sole head-to-head victory in OpenCL compute workloads. In the geekbench_opencl test, the AMD part scores 4577, which is 27.6% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3587. This is a substantial margin, suggesting the Radeon’s GCN 1.0 architecture and dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory pool provide a measurable advantage in general-purpose GPU compute tasks that stress raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth.

The Intel HD Graphics 630, however, shows its strengths in other API environments that are not part of the direct head-to-head comparison. The database lists three separate benchmark entries for the Intel part: geekbench_metal at 5099, geekbench_opencl at 3587, and geekbench_vulkan at 3540. Its Metal score is particularly notable, exceeding its own OpenCL result by roughly 42% (5099 versus 3587). This indicates that the Intel iGPU responds well to Apple’s Metal API, likely due to driver optimization and the architecture’s scheduling behavior. In Vulkan, the score drops to 3540, which is only about 1.3% below its OpenCL score, showing consistent performance across those two cross-vendor APIs.

Looking at the broader percentile context, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile. The percentile gap is small, but the average benchmark score tells a different story: the AMD part averages 4577 across its recorded tests, while the Intel part averages 4075. That is a 12.3% difference in average score, driven entirely by the OpenCL result since that is the only shared test. The Intel part’s Metal score would lift its average if that test were weighted equally, but the database’s average calculation includes all three of its benchmarks, pulling the mean down due to the lower Vulkan and OpenCL numbers.

For use-case segmentation, the data implies the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the better choice for compute-oriented OpenCL workloads, where its higher pixel rate (4.880 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (390.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS) contribute to a tangible lead. The Intel HD Graphics 630, conversely, appears more versatile in API coverage, with three distinct benchmark results across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, making it a more flexible option for applications that leverage those interfaces. The Intel part also boasts a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s, which is nearly double the AMD part’s 12.20 GTexel/s, suggesting it could handle texture-heavy workloads more efficiently despite its lower pixel output.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward for compute-heavy OpenCL tasks: the AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins decisively. Its 4577 OpenCL score beats the Intel HD Graphics 630’s 3587 by 27.6%, and that is the only direct comparison available. The AMD part also holds a higher percentile rank (27th versus 24th) and a higher average benchmark score (4577 versus 4075). Anyone relying on OpenCL for rendering, physics simulation, or data processing should prioritize the AMD solution based on these numbers.

For users who work across multiple graphics APIs, especially those that can leverage Metal or Vulkan, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is worth serious consideration. Its Metal score of 5099 is the highest single benchmark result recorded for either part, and its Vulkan score of 3540 is close to its OpenCL score, indicating broad API support. The AMD part has no recorded Metal or Vulkan results in the database, so its performance in those environments is unknown. This makes the Intel part the safer pick for heterogeneous workloads where API diversity matters more than raw OpenCL throughput.

The data also shows the Intel part consumes only 15 W TDP, while the AMD part has no recorded TDP in the database. For power-sensitive systems, the Intel iGPU’s low power draw is a clear advantage, though the AMD part is marked as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) as well, so both are designed for compact, low-power implementations. Ultimately, the choice hinges on the workload: OpenCL compute favors AMD, while API flexibility and power efficiency favor Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark in the database is geekbench_opencl, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins it with a score of 4577 against the Intel HD Graphics 630’s 3587. The delta is 27.6%, a commanding lead that points to the AMD part’s architectural strengths. The AMD GPU has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, while the Intel part has 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 ROPs. The shading unit count is 66.7% higher on the AMD side, which directly translates to more parallel compute lanes for OpenCL-style workloads. The AMD part’s FP32 throughput is 390.4 GFLOPS, slightly ahead of the Intel’s 384.0 GFLOPS, but the real differentiator appears to be memory bandwidth: the AMD part has 16.00 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth from its 2 GB DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the Intel part uses system-shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent. Dedicated memory avoids contention with the CPU, which likely explains the large OpenCL gap.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 counters with a higher texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. That is nearly a 2x advantage in texture fill, driven by its 24 TMUs operating at a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The AMD part’s texture rate comes from 20 TMUs at a memory clock of 1000 MHz, but with no base or boost clock listed for the core, the effective texture throughput is lower. In pixel throughput, the AMD part wins again: 4.880 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s, a 62.7% advantage. This makes sense given the AMD part has 8 ROPs compared to the Intel’s 3 ROPs, even though the Intel part’s boost clock is higher (1000 MHz versus an unspecified AMD boost). The ROP count difference is the dominant factor in pixel rate.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the AMD Radeon R5 M230’s OpenCL score of 4577 places it just 0.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% above the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). It is 0.9% below the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621) and 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628). This suggests the R5 M230 punches above its weight in OpenCL, matching or beating much larger discrete GPUs in this specific test. The Intel HD Graphics 630, with its OpenCL score of 3587, sits 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093 is the rival’s score, so the Intel is 12.4% lower, but the delta is listed as -0.4% from the rival’s perspective), 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033), and 1.5% above the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013). Its average score of 4075 is 1.8% below the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151). These rival comparisons show the Intel part is competitive with older mid-range discrete GPUs in OpenCL, but the AMD part is closer to high-end mobile parts from its era.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 in geekbench_opencl, which is 27.6% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 630’s score of 3587 in the same test.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 support more graphics APIs than the AMD Radeon R5 M230?

A: Yes, the database records benchmark results for the Intel part in geekbench_metal (5099), geekbench_opencl (3587), and geekbench_vulkan (3540). The AMD part only has a recorded geekbench_opencl score (4577). The Intel part also lists Vulkan 1.3 support, while the AMD part lists Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has an average benchmark score of 4577, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 averages 4075. The AMD part is 12.3% higher on average.

Q: How do the pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has a pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s, which is 62.7% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 630’s 3.000 GPixel/s. However, the Intel part has a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s, which is 96.7% higher than the AMD part’s 12.20 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile. The AMD part ranks three percentile points higher.

Q: What is the power consumption of the Intel HD Graphics 630?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a recorded TDP of 15 W. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has no TDP listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Jet chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The architecture is based on Graphics Core Next, which is designed for compute-heavy workloads with a unified shader array. Its 320 shading units are organized into compute units that can handle FP32 operations, and the part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The memory subsystem uses a dedicated 2 GB DDR3 pool on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is a key architectural advantage for compute tasks, as it does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses the Kaby Lake GT2 chip with Generation 9.5 architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm++ process. The database does not list transistor count or die size for this part. It has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs, which is a smaller shading unit count but a higher TMU count compared to the AMD part. The Intel architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, with the latter being a newer version than the AMD part’s Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel part also supports FP16 operations at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 rate), which the AMD part does not list. The memory interface is system shared, meaning it uses the host system’s RAM with bandwidth that is system dependent. The bus interface is listed as Ring Bus, which is the interconnect used in Intel’s integrated graphics. The Intel part also has a recorded TDP of 15 W, indicating a power-efficient design, while the AMD part has no TDP figure but is also marked as an IGP.

The process node difference is significant: 28 nm for AMD versus 14 nm++ for Intel. The smaller process node allows Intel to pack more efficiency into a lower power envelope, but the AMD part’s dedicated memory and higher shading unit count give it a compute edge. The AMD part’s generation is listed as Gem System (R5 M200) with a predecessor of Solar System and successor of Polaris Mobile, while the Intel part’s generation is HD Graphics (Kaby Lake) with no predecessor or successor listed. Both parts are end-of-life in production status.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specification fields. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has 320 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 has 192, a difference of 128 units in favor of AMD. The texture mapping units also differ: the AMD part has 20 TMUs, while the Intel part has 24 TMUs, giving Intel a 4 TMU advantage. The ROP count is starkly different: the AMD part has 8 ROPs, while the Intel part has 3 ROPs, a 5 ROP difference. Clock specifications vary, with the AMD part listing only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the Intel part lists a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The AMD part has no base or boost clock recorded.

Memory configuration is a major difference. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system-shared memory with system-shared type and bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The AMD part’s pixel rate is 4.880 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s for Intel, while the texture rate is 12.20 GTexel/s for AMD versus 24.00 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 performance is close: 390.4 GFLOPS for AMD versus 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel, a 6.4 GFLOPS difference. The Intel part also lists FP16 performance at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), which the AMD part does not have.

The process node differs, with the AMD part at 28 nm and the Intel part at 14 nm++. The AMD part’s transistor count is 690 million on a 56 mm² die, while the Intel part has no transistor or die size data. The bus interface also differs: the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Intel part uses Ring Bus. Display outputs are portable device dependent for AMD and motherboard dependent for Intel. The API support differs in DirectX version (12 (11_1) for AMD versus 12 (12_1) for Intel) and Vulkan version (1.2.170 for AMD versus 1.3 for Intel). The Intel part has a recorded TDP of 15 W, while the AMD part has none. Release dates differ, with the AMD part released on 2014-01-06 and the Intel part on 2016-08-29.