AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs Intel HD Graphics 630 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs Intel HD Graphics 630

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 edges out the Intel HD Graphics 630 in the only two directly comparable benchmark tests, but the margin is narrower than the raw specification sheet suggests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R5 M330 scores 4302 against the Intel's 3587, a 19.9% advantage; in Vulkan, the gap shrinks to 14% (4037 vs 3540). However, the Intel part posts a higher Geekbench Metal score of 5099, which the AMD cannot contest, and both GPUs sit at essentially the same performance percentile (25th vs 24th). The R5 M330 is the stronger compute device in cross-platform APIs, while the HD 630 offers better integration and a more modern feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins both shared benchmark tests. It leads by 19.9% in Geekbench OpenCL (4302 vs 3587) and by 14% in Geekbench Vulkan (4037 vs 3540).

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes. The Intel part achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 5099. The AMD R5 M330 has no Metal benchmark listed, so this represents a clear win for Intel in Apple's graphics API.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M330's average score of 4170 puts it 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093), but 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193). The HD 630's average of 4075 is 1% ahead of the GeForce GT 755M (4033) and 1.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013), while sitting 0.4% behind the RX 9060 XT 8 GB.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The AMD R5 M330 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD 630 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD R5 M330 runs at a 955 MHz base clock and 1030 MHz boost. The Intel HD 630 operates at a 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. The AMD part maintains a higher floor and slightly higher peak.

Q: What is the transistor and process situation?

A: The AMD R5 M330 is built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die (12.3M transistors per mm²). The Intel HD 630 uses Intel's 14 nm++ process, though its transistor count and die size are not listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture with the "Exo" chip, belonging to the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. It packs 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The GCN design emphasizes parallel compute throughput, which explains its strong OpenCL and Vulkan showing despite modest clock speeds.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture with the Kaby Lake GT2 chip. It has fewer shading units at 192 but more TMUs at 24, and only 3 ROPs. Intel's design allocates resources differently: fewer shaders but higher texture throughput per clock. The HD 630 also supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio (768.0 GFLOPS), a capability the AMD part does not list, which can accelerate certain workloads that utilize half-precision math.

Process technology differs substantially. The AMD chip uses TSMC's 28 nm node, while Intel employs its 14 nm++ process. This gives Intel a density advantage in theory, though the HD 630's transistor count and die size are not disclosed. The AMD part's 690 million transistors on 56 mm² yields 12.3M transistors per mm².

Memory architecture is a fundamental divide. The R5 M330 has dedicated 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, providing predictable performance. The HD 630 relies entirely on System Shared memory, making its bandwidth "System Dependent" — performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration and speed.

API support shows Intel's newer pedigree. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the HD 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the R5 M330's 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170. Intel also lists a Metal benchmark, indicating macOS driver support, while AMD does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the largest gap between these two GPUs. The AMD R5 M330 scores 4302 against the Intel HD 630's 3587, a 19.9% advantage. This aligns with the AMD part's higher FP32 throughput of 659.2 GFLOPS versus Intel's 384.0 GFLOPS. The R5 M330 also has a higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s vs 3.000 GPixel/s) and nearly double the shader count.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the margin. AMD posts 4037 versus Intel's 3540, a 14% lead. The smaller gap suggests Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture handles Vulkan's lower-level API more efficiently relative to its raw compute specs. The HD 630's texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s actually exceeds the R5 M330's 20.60 GTexel/s, which may help in certain Vulkan workloads.

Where Intel wins outright is Geekbench Metal with a score of 5099. This is notably higher than either GPU's OpenCL or Vulkan results, indicating strong optimization for Apple's Metal framework. However, no comparable Metal score exists for the AMD R5 M330, so this cannot be a direct head-to-head comparison — it is simply a data point showing Intel's capability in that API.

The average benchmark scores reflect overall parity. The R5 M330 averages 4170 across its two tests, while the HD 630 averages 4075 across three tests. The AMD part's higher OpenCL and Vulkan scores are partially offset by Intel's Metal result when calculating the average. Both GPUs land in the bottom quartile of all GPUs, with the R5 M330 at the 25th percentile and the HD 630 at the 24th.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M330 | Intel HD Graphics 630 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 9.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm++ (Intel) |

| Transistors | 690 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory | 2 GB DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 3.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 18 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2016-08-29 |

The R5 M330's dedicated memory gives it a fixed bandwidth advantage, while the HD 630's shared memory can theoretically scale with faster system RAM but remains unspecified.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but qualified winner: the AMD Radeon R5 M330 takes the compute crown in cross-platform APIs, winning OpenCL by 19.9% and Vulkan by 14%. Its higher shading unit count (320 vs 192), superior FP32 throughput (659.2 vs 384.0 GFLOPS), and dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth provide tangible benefits in GPU-bound workloads.

However, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is not without merit. Its Metal score of 5099 demonstrates strong performance in Apple's ecosystem, and its newer architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, both more advanced than the AMD's offerings. The HD 630 also draws less power (15 W vs 18 W) and has a higher texture rate (24.00 vs 20.60 GTexel/s).

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the R5 M330 is the better choice. For those needing Metal compatibility, the HD 630 is the only option with a listed score. The average benchmark scores (4170 vs 4075) show the AMD part is about 2.3% faster overall, but the percentile rankings (25th vs 24th) place both firmly in entry-level territory.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins in:

• OpenCL compute: 4302 vs 3587 (19.9% ahead)
• Vulkan compute: 4037 vs 3540 (14% ahead)
• Pixel throughput: 8.240 GPixel/s vs 3.000 GPixel/s
• Floating-point performance: 659.2 GFLOPS vs 384.0 GFLOPS
• Dedicated memory: 2 GB DDR3 with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth vs shared system memory
• Shader count: 320 vs 192 units

Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in:

• Metal benchmark: 5099 (no AMD equivalent listed)
• Texture throughput: 24.00 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s
• Power efficiency: 15 W TDP vs 18 W TDP
• API modernity: Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) vs Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1)
• FP16 support: 768.0 GFLOPS vs not listed
• Integration: Ring Bus interface vs PCIe 3.0 x8, meaning no separate card required

The R5 M330 is the pick for standalone compute tasks in OpenCL or Vulkan, especially where dedicated VRAM prevents system memory contention. The HD 630 suits integrated builds where power draw, motherboard flexibility, and Metal API support matter more than raw shader throughput. Neither GPU escapes the bottom quartile of overall performance, so expectations should remain modest.