AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 and AMD Radeon R5 M240 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and performance tiers. The data shows a clear hierarchy, with the Intel part holding a significant edge in the available benchmark, but the AMD part offering a distinct set of hardware characteristics. This analysis breaks down the specifications and measured performance to understand where each chip excels.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score based on the data?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has a higher average benchmark score of 7170, compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M240's score of 6975. This gives the Intel part a lead in the aggregate data.

Q: How significant is the performance gap in the direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 scored 9082, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scored 6975. This results in a 30.2% advantage for the Intel processor.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same manufacturing process technology?

A: No, they are not. The Intel part is built on a 14 nm+ process by Intel, whereas the AMD part uses a 28 nm process fabricated by TSMC. This is a major architectural difference that impacts efficiency and density.

Q: What are the DirectX feature level capabilities of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is the higher feature level. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a lower feature level.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s, which is slightly higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M240's 8.240 GPixel/s.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 has a dedicated 14.40 GB/s bandwidth from its 64-bit DDR3 memory interface. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 uses system shared memory, making its bandwidth "System Dependent" and not a fixed figure.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is substantial. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is built on the Skylake GT4e chip, utilizing Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture. It is a 14 nm+ part designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that relies on the Ring Bus interface to communicate with the rest of the system. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 is a discrete-style chip based on the "Jet" silicon, using the older GCN 1.0 architecture. This AMD part is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, a significant node disadvantage compared to Intel's offering.

The core configuration further highlights their differences. The Intel P580 is equipped with 576 shading units, 72 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 9 ROPs. The AMD R5 M240, meanwhile, has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the Intel part has 80% more shading units and 260% more TMUs, which directly translates to its massive lead in texture fill rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs. 20.60 GTexel/s). The AMD chip does have a defined transistor count of 690 million on a 56 mm² die, while such details are not specified for the Intel part.

Memory architecture is another point of divergence. The Intel P580 uses system shared memory, meaning its performance is contingent on the host system's RAM. The AMD R5 M240 features a dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a fixed 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. In terms of API support, Intel has a slight edge with Vulkan 1.3 support compared to AMD's 1.2.170, and it also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 achieved a score of 9082, while the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scored 6975. This represents a 30.2% performance advantage for the Intel part. This is a significant margin that indicates a clear generational and architectural superiority in compute workloads for the Intel solution.

This 30.2% delta is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial leap in raw computational throughput. The Intel P580’s higher shading unit count and more modern architecture allow it to handle parallel processing tasks much more efficiently. While the AMD R5 M240 holds its own against its own set of rivals—being 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and 2.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro M5100—it cannot match the Intel part's absolute performance. The Intel P580’s score places it in a competitive position even against much larger dedicated graphics cards, being within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile and 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750. The data suggests that in OpenCL compute, the Intel integrated solution is the clear winner.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal distinct design choices. The most fundamental difference lies in their process technology, with the Intel P580 using a 14 nm+ node and the AMD R5 M240 using a 28 nm node. This leads to a difference in their physical characteristics: AMD lists a die size of 56 mm² and a transistor density of 12.3M / mm², while Intel does not provide these figures.

Clock speeds also differ, though the Intel part has a lower base clock of 350 MHz, it boosts to 1000 MHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1030 MHz. The Intel P580 has a clear advantage in raw compute resources: 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 9 ROPs versus AMD's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This results in a higher pixel rate (9.000 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s) and a vastly higher texture rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s).

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Intel P580 uses "System Shared" memory, with a "System Dependent" bandwidth. The AMD R5 M240 has a fixed 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s. The TDP is listed as 15 W for the Intel part, while it is null for the AMD part. The bus interface also differs: Intel uses "Ring Bus," while AMD uses "PCIe 3.0 x8." Finally, the supported API levels differ, with Intel supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the choice clear for compute-heavy tasks. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is the superior performer, delivering a 30.2% higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its architectural advantages—a more modern 14 nm+ process, a significantly higher number of shading units and TMUs, and a higher texture fill rate—translate directly into a substantial performance lead. The data indicates that for any workload leveraging OpenCL, the Intel part is the definitive winner.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240, while trailing in performance, is not without its own merits. Its specification sheet shows a more traditional discrete GPU setup with dedicated VRAM. This could offer more predictable performance in scenarios where the system's main memory bandwidth is a bottleneck for the Intel IGP. However, based strictly on the provided benchmark, the Intel P580 is the more powerful graphics processor. The AMD part’s performance is comparable to its own rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M, but it cannot bridge the gap to the Intel Iris Pro.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the primary differentiator is raw compute performance. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins decisively in the only benchmark provided, making it the clear choice for applications that are heavily reliant on GPGPU compute via OpenCL. Its 30.2% advantage in this test suggests it can handle more complex parallel processing tasks with greater ease. Its higher texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s also implies it would be more capable in texture-bound graphics workloads.

The AMD Radeon R5 M240, despite its performance deficit, has a structural advantage in its dedicated memory setup. With its own 1024 MB of DDR3 memory and a fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, its performance is not dependent on the rest of the system. This makes it a more predictable and self-contained component. While the Intel P580's memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," the AMD part offers a fixed, dedicated pool. This could make it a more stable choice in systems with slower or shared system memory. Its lower pixel rate and texture rate, however, mean it will likely struggle to keep up with the Intel part in modern graphics-intensive tasks.