AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 records an average benchmark score of 5370, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 records 4657. The Intel part sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part sits in the 27th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111, and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051. Intel wins by 1.2%, a narrow margin that places the two effectively on par in this workload.

Q: Which GPU has the larger advantage in Vulkan performance?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5628 versus 4262 for the AMD Radeon R5 M320. That is a 32.1% advantage, the largest single-test gap between the two.

Q: What are the architecture and process nodes of each GPU?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is built on Generation 9.5 architecture (Comet Lake GT2 chip) using Intel's 14 nm+++ process. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses GCN 1.0 architecture (Jet chip) on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear overall winner: the Intel UHD Graphics P630 takes both head-to-head benchmark tests, securing 2 wins against 0 for the AMD Radeon R5 M320. Its average benchmark score of 5370 is 15.3% higher than the AMD part's 4657, and its 31st percentile placement versus the AMD part's 27th percentile reinforces that lead.

However, the choice depends on workload. In OpenCL, the two are nearly indistinguishable: the Intel part scores 5111 versus 5051, a 1.2% difference. Any user selecting strictly on that test would find either GPU acceptable. In Vulkan, the story flips decisively: the Intel part scores 5628, which is 32.1% ahead of the AMD part's 4262. For any Vulkan-based application, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the only rational pick.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 does hold structural advantages. It has 320 shading units versus 192, 8 ROPs versus 3, a higher pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s, and a higher FP32 throughput of 547.2 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS. It also has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory, whereas the Intel part relies on system shared memory. These specifications suggest the AMD part should be competitive, yet the benchmark results show it trailing in both recorded tests, particularly in Vulkan.

For a user prioritizing average performance, Vulkan capability, or overall benchmark position, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the pick. For a user who values the theoretical throughput advantages and dedicated memory of the AMD part, the Radeon R5 M320 remains a viable option, but the data does not support choosing it over the Intel part for raw benchmark performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison consists of two Geekbench tests. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins both, but the margins tell very different stories.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 against the AMD Radeon R5 M320's 5051. The delta is 1.2%, which is within the range of run-to-run variance for many systems. Neither GPU establishes dominance here; the scores are effectively tied for practical purposes.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5628 against 4262. The 32.1% delta is the defining result of this comparison. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial gap that suggests the Intel architecture handles the Vulkan workload far more efficiently than the AMD GCN 1.0 part.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the positioning. The Intel UHD Graphics P630's closest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (avgScore 5358, +0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (avgScore 5322, +0.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (avgScore 5317, +1%). Its average of 5370 sits just above these peers. The AMD Radeon R5 M320's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (avgScore 4657, 0%), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (avgScore 4684, -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (avgScore 4628, +0.6%). Its average of 4657 places it in that lower cluster.

The two GPUs are not competing in the same performance tier. The Intel part's nearest rivals average around 5300 to 5400, while the AMD part's nearest rivals average around 4600 to 4700. The head-to-head results simply confirm what the percentile data already suggests: the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the stronger part, with the Vulkan test providing the clearest separation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

Clocks: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. The AMD part runs at higher base clocks, but the Intel part boosts much higher.

Memory: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Shading units: The Intel part has 192 shading units. The AMD part has 320.

Texture mapping units: The Intel part has 24 TMUs. The AMD part has 20.

Render output units: The Intel part has 3 ROPs. The AMD part has 8.

Pixel rate: The Intel part delivers 3.600 GPixel/s. The AMD part delivers 6.840 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: The Intel part delivers 28.80 GTexel/s. The AMD part delivers 17.10 GTexel/s.

FP32 throughput: The Intel part delivers 460.8 GFLOPS. The AMD part delivers 547.2 GFLOPS.

FP16 throughput: The Intel part delivers 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1). The AMD part has no recorded FP16 value.

Process node: The Intel part uses 14 nm+++. The AMD part uses 28 nm.

Foundry: The Intel part is fabricated by Intel. The AMD part is fabricated by TSMC.

Transistors and die size: The AMD part has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor or die size data.

Bus interface: The Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display outputs: The Intel part is motherboard dependent. The AMD part is portable device dependent.

Vulkan version: The Intel part supports Vulkan 1.3. The AMD part supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

DirectX version: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

TDP: The Intel part is rated at 15 W. The AMD part has no recorded TDP.

Release date: The Intel part launched on 2020-05-12. The AMD part launched on 2015-05-04.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is built on Generation 9.5 architecture, specifically the Comet Lake GT2 chip, and belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) generation. It uses Intel's 14 nm+++ process, a mature refinement of Intel's 14 nm node. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses GCN 1.0 architecture, the first iteration of AMD's Graphics Core Next design, built around the Jet chip. It belongs to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation and is fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a predecessor named Solar System and a successor named Polaris Mobile, according to the database.

The transistor counts reflect the different design eras. The AMD part carries 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor or die size data, but its 14 nm+++ process is significantly more advanced than the 28 nm node used for the AMD part.

The compute configurations differ in direction. The AMD part has more shading units (320 versus 192) and more ROPs (8 versus 3), giving it higher pixel rate and FP32 throughput. The Intel part has more TMUs (24 versus 20), giving it a higher texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. The Intel part also records FP16 throughput at 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1), while the AMD part has no recorded FP16 capability.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel part is an integrated GPU using system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The AMD part, despite being an IGP in slot width, has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. This gives the AMD part a fixed memory allocation but at a modest bandwidth level.

The API support also differs. The Intel part reaches Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD part stops at Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). These differences matter for modern application compatibility, and they likely explain part of the Vulkan benchmark gap.

Where Each One Wins

Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins on overall benchmark performance. Its average benchmark score of 5370 beats the AMD Radeon R5 M320's 4657 by 15.3%. It also holds a higher percentile placement at 31st versus 27th.

Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins on Vulkan performance. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 5628 versus 4262 is a 32.1% advantage. This is the largest margin in any recorded test and makes the Intel part the clear choice for Vulkan-based workloads.

Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins on OpenCL performance, narrowly. The 5111 versus 5051 result is a 1.2% edge. This is not a meaningful performance separation, but it still counts as a win in the head-to-head record.

Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins on API modernity. It supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). Applications targeting newer API features will favor the Intel part.

AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins on theoretical compute throughput. It has 320 shading units versus 192, an FP32 throughput of 547.2 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS, and a pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s. These figures suggest it should handle raw compute and pixel-heavy workloads better, though the benchmark data does not confirm this in practice.

AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins on dedicated memory. It has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. For workloads that benefit from a fixed memory pool, the AMD part has the structural advantage.

AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins on base clock and transistor count. It runs at 780 MHz base versus 350 MHz, and it carries 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. These are specification-level advantages that do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

The practical split is simple. Users who care about measured performance, Vulkan compatibility, or overall benchmark standing should choose the Intel UHD Graphics P630. Users who care about theoretical throughput, dedicated memory, or the AMD architecture's compute characteristics may prefer the Radeon R5 M320, but they should expect lower benchmark scores in the recorded tests.