AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs Intel HD Graphics 630 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 records an average benchmark score of 4788, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 averages 4075. That places the AMD part about 17.5% higher in overall measured performance.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which averages 4791. The R5 M255 trails that part by only 0.1%, making the two statistically equivalent in aggregate scores.

Q: What is the Intel HD Graphics 630's closest competitor?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB scores 4093 on average, which is 0.4% higher than the Intel part's 4075. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is also nearby at 4033, 1% lower.

Q: In which benchmark does the AMD Radeon R5 M255 show its largest advantage?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scores 4925 versus 3540 for the Intel HD Graphics 630, a 39.1% margin. This is the single biggest win recorded in the head-to-head data.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the two recorded comparisons, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins both. The Intel part has zero wins in this matchup.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 was released in October 2014, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 arrived in August 2016.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0 architecture using a Topaz chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses Generation 9.5 architecture with a Kaby Lake GT2 die, produced on Intel's 14 nm++ process. These are fundamentally different designs: one is a discrete mobile GPU, the other an integrated graphics processor.

Transistor counts and die size are only recorded for the AMD part. The R5 M255 packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel chip's die and transistor figures are not listed in the database, so no direct comparison is possible on those fields.

The memory architecture separates the two clearly. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory for everything: size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent". That means the Intel part's memory performance varies with the host system, while the AMD card has fixed, dedicated resources.

Shader resources differ substantially. The AMD part has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 raster output units. Both have the same TMU count, but the AMD card doubles the shader count and has more than double the ROPs.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 runs at a 925 MHz base clock with a 940 MHz boost. The Intel HD Graphics 630 starts much lower at 350 MHz base but boosts to 1000 MHz. Memory clocks are only specified for the AMD part: 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel GPU's memory clock is tied to system memory.

API support shows a generation gap. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.3. The Intel GPU also lists DirectX 12_1 feature level, compared to 12_0 for the AMD part. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 5099, which the AMD card cannot match since it has no Metal benchmark entry.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and a Ring Bus interface. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has no TDP listed in the database. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the Intel part; the AMD card's outputs are not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests, and the AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD card scores 4650 against 3587 for the Intel HD Graphics 630. That is a 29.6% advantage. The second is Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD part scores 4925 against 3540, a 39.1% margin.

The Vulkan result is the more decisive one. A 39.1% lead in a modern graphics API indicates that the AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a meaningful performance ceiling above the Intel integrated solution. The gap is large enough that the two parts are not competing in the same performance tier, despite both being entry-level or mainstream mobile graphics solutions.

The OpenCL result confirms the pattern. A 29.6% lead in compute workloads shows that the AMD card's 384 shading units and dedicated memory produce real throughput advantages. The Intel HD Graphics 630's 192 shading units and shared memory architecture simply cannot match the raw compute output.

It is worth remembering the Intel HD Graphics 630 does have a Metal score of 5099, which is higher than either of its OpenCL or Vulkan results. However, no Metal benchmark exists for the AMD Radeon R5 M255 in the database, so this cannot be used as a head-to-head comparison. Within the recorded matchup, the AMD card is the clear winner.

The database's nearest-rival data reinforces this. The AMD Radeon R5 M255's average score of 4788 puts it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB and 1.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. The Intel HD Graphics 630's average of 4075 puts it within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and 1.5% of the AMD FirePro M4150. The AMD card competes in a higher performance neighborhood.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification category. The manufacturing process is 28 nm for AMD versus 14 nm++ for Intel. The AMD part uses GCN 3.0 architecture; the Intel part uses Generation 9.5. The AMD card is discrete with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface; the Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface.

Memory is a major differentiator. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 with a 128 bit bus and 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This alone explains much of the performance gap in memory-sensitive workloads.

Compute units differ. The AMD card has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. The AMD part's pixel rate is 7.520 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rates are closer: 22.56 GTexel/s for AMD and 24.00 GTexel/s for Intel, where the Intel part actually leads slightly.

FP32 throughput is 721.9 GFLOPS for the AMD card versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part. The Intel HD Graphics 630 does have a higher FP16 rate at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, compared to the AMD card's 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Clock speeds show the AMD part at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost, while Intel sits at 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost.

The TDP is listed only for the Intel part at 15 W. The AMD card has no TDP recorded. The Intel part is listed as IGP slot width; the AMD card has no slot width recorded. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel, not recorded for AMD. Release dates differ: October 2014 for AMD, August 2016 for Intel. Both are end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins the only two head-to-head benchmarks recorded, with margins of 29.6% in OpenCL and 39.1% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4788 versus 4075 for the Intel HD Graphics 630 places it clearly ahead in aggregate performance.

The AMD card's advantage comes from dedicated memory, more than double the shading units, and more than double the ROPs. The 2 GB DDR3 allocation with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth gives it a fixed memory resource that the Intel part cannot match with system shared memory. The 384 shading units versus 192 is a fundamental compute advantage that shows up directly in both benchmark results.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 does have some redeeming qualities. Its 24.00 GTexel/s texture rate is higher than the AMD card's 22.56 GTexel/s. Its FP16 throughput of 768.0 GFLOPS exceeds the AMD card's 721.9 GFLOPS. It supports Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170, and it has a DirectX 12_1 feature level versus 12_0. Its 15 W TDP and IGP nature mean it draws power from the host CPU package, which can be an advantage in ultra-portable systems.

However, none of those advantages translate into benchmark wins. In the recorded data, the Intel part loses both tests by wide margins. Its percentile ranking of 24 versus 28 for the AMD card confirms that it sits lower in the overall GPU distribution.

For users choosing between these two, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the performance pick. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is the efficiency pick, but only if the host system's shared memory and lower compute capabilities are acceptable.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4650 beats the Intel part's 3587 by 29.6%. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925 beats the Intel part's 3540 by 39.1%. Any workload that stresses shader throughput, pixel fill, or dedicated memory bandwidth will favor the AMD card. Its 7.520 GPixel/s pixel rate and 721.9 GFLOPS FP32 output are direct evidence of this strength.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in specific niche areas. Its texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s exceeds the AMD card's 22.56 GTexel/s, so texture-heavy workloads may see a slight advantage. Its FP16 throughput of 768.0 GFLOPS is higher than the AMD card's 721.9 GFLOPS, useful for workloads that can use half-precision math. Its Vulkan 1.3 API support and DirectX 12_1 feature level give it a more modern feature set. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained systems.

For gaming, the AMD card is the better choice based on the Vulkan benchmark. A 39.1% lead in Vulkan suggests that modern games using that API will run noticeably better on the R5 M255. For compute workloads, the OpenCL result points the same direction. For ultra-portable or battery-focused systems where the CPU's integrated graphics avoids a separate GPU, the Intel part has a role.

The overall database picture is clear: the AMD Radeon R5 M255 occupies a higher performance tier, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 offers integration and efficiency. Users who need the best recorded performance should pick the AMD part. Users who need a low-power integrated solution with modern API support should consider the Intel part, accepting the measurable performance gap.