AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data places the Intel UHD Graphics P630 ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M255 in every recorded test. The Intel part wins both OpenCL and Vulkan Geekbench runs, with margins of 9.9% and 14.3% respectively. Its average benchmark score of 5370 versus 4788 for the AMD part reflects a consistent performance gap across the two workloads.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the stronger candidate for general compute tasks and API-agnostic workloads. Its Vulkan score of 5628 is particularly notable, showing a 14.3% advantage over the Radeon R5 M255's 4925. For users who prioritize OpenCL compute, the Intel part still leads, scoring 5111 versus 4650, a 9.9% difference.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255, by contrast, occupies a lower tier in the database. Its 28th percentile ranking among all GPUs sits below the Intel part's 31st percentile. The data does not favor the Radeon in any single benchmark category, so its role is limited to systems where the Intel integrated graphics are unavailable or where software specifically requires an AMD discrete solution.

For buyers choosing between these two, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the straightforward pick based on recorded performance. The Radeon R5 M255 remains a fallback option, not a competitive alternative.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Comet Lake GT2 chip built on Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process gap gives Intel a density and efficiency advantage in theory, though the Radeon compensates with a much larger transistor budget.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The Intel part does not list transistor count or die size in the database, so a direct density comparison is not possible from recorded data.

Compute resources differ sharply. The AMD part features 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, while the Intel part has 192 shading units and only 3 ROPs. Both have 24 texture mapping units. Despite having half the shading units, the Intel part still wins in raw FP32 throughput: 460.8 GFLOPS versus 721.9 GFLOPS for AMD. That 64.5% FP32 deficit for Intel is notable, yet the benchmark results do not reflect it, suggesting the Intel architecture extracts more useful work per FLOP in these tests.

Pixel and texture rates tell a mixed story. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 achieves 7.520 GPixel/s pixel rate and 22.56 GTexel/s texture rate. The Intel part delivers 3.600 GPixel/s and 28.80 GTexel/s. So AMD leads in pixel fill by a wide margin, while Intel leads in texture fill by 27.7%.

Memory configuration differs fundamentally. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 shares system memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Intel part's memory clock is also listed as system shared, meaning its performance scales with the host system's RAM speed.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part. Its base clock of 925 MHz and boost of 940 MHz are far above Intel's 350 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. The Intel boost clock reaches 1200 MHz, but the base is dramatically lower. Both parts support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, though Intel supports Vulkan 1.3 while AMD supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

The AMD part uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Intel part is an IGP with a ring bus connection. This means the Intel part has no separate bus bandwidth constraints, whereas the AMD part depends on its PCIe link. The Radeon R5 M255 also has a predecessor (Solar System) and successor (Polaris Mobile) recorded, while the Intel part lists neither.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two Geekbench tests for each GPU. In OpenCL, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 against 4650 for the AMD Radeon R5 M255, a 9.9% advantage. In Vulkan, the Intel part scores 5628 against 4925, a 14.3% margin. The Intel part wins both tests, giving it 2 wins and 0 losses in the head-to-head comparison.

The Vulkan gap is the larger one. A 14.3% lead suggests the Intel architecture's newer API support and driver implementation translate into a more pronounced advantage under Vulkan. The OpenCL gap of 9.9% is smaller but still decisive.

Context from the nearest rivals helps calibrate these scores. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits within 1% of several contemporaries: the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, delta 0.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, delta 1%). Only the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416) edges it out, by 0.8%. This means the Intel part is essentially at parity with a broad mid-range group of older discrete GPUs.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255, by contrast, sits within 1.3% of a different group: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752, delta 0.8%), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844, delta -1.2%), and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727, delta 1.3%). The Radeon R5 M255 is effectively tied with these parts, none of which reach the 5000-point threshold that the Intel part clears.

Put differently, the Intel UHD Graphics P630's average score of 5370 places it in a performance class roughly 10% above the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4788. The percentile data reinforces this: the Intel part ranks in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part ranks in the 28th. Both are low-end parts, but the Intel part is measurably less low-end.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 averages 5370, while the AMD Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788. That is a 12.2% advantage for the Intel part.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5628 versus 4925 for the AMD Radeon R5 M255, a 14.3% lead for Intel.

Q: Does the AMD part have any fill rate advantages?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 achieves a pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s, more than double the Intel's 3.600 GPixel/s. The AMD part also has 8 ROPs versus 3 ROPs for Intel.

Q: What API versions do these GPUs support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Intel part supports Vulkan 1.3, while the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, double the Intel UHD Graphics P630's 192. Despite this, the Intel part scores higher in both recorded benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in raw compute benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 5111 and Vulkan score of 5628 both exceed the AMD part's corresponding scores of 4650 and 4925. The Vulkan gap of 14.3% is the single largest margin in the comparison. For any workload that relies on Vulkan or OpenCL compute, the Intel part is the better choice.

The Intel part also wins on texture throughput. Its texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s exceeds the AMD's 22.56 GTexel/s by 27.7%. This suggests an advantage in texture-bound workloads, even though the AMD part has more shading units and a higher pixel rate.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins on pixel fill rate. Its 7.520 GPixel/s is more than double the Intel's 3.600 GPixel/s. For workloads dominated by pixel shading and rasterization, the AMD part has a theoretical edge, though the benchmark data does not reflect any practical advantage.

The AMD part also wins on memory bandwidth in absolute terms. Its 32.00 GB/s dedicated bandwidth is fixed and predictable, while the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent and could vary with the host RAM configuration. For applications that require consistent memory throughput, the AMD part offers more certainty.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has a transistor and die size advantage in terms of raw resources: 1,550 million transistors on 125 mm² versus unspecified figures for Intel. The AMD part also has 8 ROPs versus 3, and 384 shading units versus 192. These hardware resources do not translate into benchmark wins, but they do provide architectural headroom for specific workloads.

In terms of longevity, the Intel part is newer (release date of 2020) versus the AMD part (release date of 2014). The Intel part also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 for AMD, giving it a newer API baseline. Both parts are marked end-of-life in the database.

For system integration, the Intel part has a clear advantage: it is an IGP with a ring bus interface, requiring no separate PCIe slot and no power connectors. The AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which demands a slot and potentially additional power circuitry. The Intel part's display outputs are motherboard dependent, meaning it piggybacks on the motherboard's video outputs.

The AMD Radeon R5 M255's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791 with a delta of -0.1%. This is a quirk of the database: the Radeon R5 M255 sits within statistical noise of a high-end part. In practice, the recorded scores place both GPUs in the bottom third of all GPUs (28th and 31st percentiles).

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the winner for most users. It leads in both benchmark categories, has a higher average score, and offers modern API support. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 retains a role only in systems where a discrete GPU is mandatory and where pixel fill rate or dedicated memory bandwidth outweigh the benchmark deficit. Those scenarios are narrow, but the data does show the AMD part's fill rate advantages clearly.