AMD Radeon R5 M420 vs Intel HD Graphics 530 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics processors. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 takes the single recorded OpenCL compute test, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 counters with wins in other API families that the database tracks. Looking at the raw scores, the AMD part posts 3956 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.4% ahead of Intel's 3550 in the same test. That one head-to-head result gives AMD the only direct victory in the comparison.

However, the Intel HD Graphics 530 shows its strengths in a different light. Its Geekbench Metal score reaches 5025, a figure substantially higher than its OpenCL result, and its Vulkan score sits at 1422. These additional API benchmarks are not part of the direct head-to-head comparison, but they indicate that Intel's integrated solution has broader software ecosystem support. The average benchmark score for Intel, calculated across all its recorded tests, lands at 3332, while AMD's average equals its single OpenCL score of 3956. This means AMD wins on average compute throughput, but Intel demonstrates versatility across multiple graphics APIs.

The percentile rankings place AMD in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, with Intel slightly lower at the 20th percentile. Both are entry-level mobile parts by the database's classification. The use-case split becomes clear: AMD leads in raw OpenCL number crunching, while Intel offers more API coverage with Metal and Vulkan results that AMD does not match. For applications that rely on Vulkan or Metal, the Intel part has recorded performance data; for OpenCL workloads, AMD holds the edge.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD's Radeon R5 M420 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die. Intel's HD Graphics 530 employs Generation 9.0 graphics on a 14 nm+ Intel process, with a larger 123 mm² die that includes the CPU cores alongside graphics. The transistor density for AMD is listed at 12.3M per mm², while Intel's is not recorded due to the integrated nature of the chip.

Core counts differ meaningfully. AMD fields 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. Intel counters with 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, but only 3 ROPs. This configuration explains the performance profiles: AMD's higher shader count and ROP count favor pixel-heavy and compute-heavy tasks, while Intel's extra TMUs give it a texture rate advantage. The pixel rate numbers confirm this, AMD achieves 6.800 GPixel/s versus Intel's 2.850 GPixel/s, a substantial lead for AMD. Conversely, Intel's texture rate reaches 22.80 GTexel/s, outpacing AMD's 17.00 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell another story. AMD runs at a 780 MHz base with an 850 MHz boost, while Intel starts lower at 350 MHz but boosts to 950 MHz. The memory architectures diverge completely: AMD uses 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel shares system memory with a bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. This gives AMD a fixed memory pool but limits bandwidth, whereas Intel's performance scales with the host system's RAM configuration.

Feature support differs in API coverage. Both support DirectX 12, but AMD's implementation is version 12 (11_1) while Intel reaches 12 (12_1), a higher feature level. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support shows Intel ahead with version 1.3 versus AMD's 1.2.170. Intel also records FP16 capability at 729.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature AMD does not list.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. AMD's Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956 against Intel's 3550, a delta of 11.4% in AMD's favor. This is a decisive margin for a mobile integrated-class GPU. To contextualize this result, AMD's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 (a 0% delta), the GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.1% delta), the Quadro K2000 at 3964 (a -0.2% delta meaning AMD is behind), and the Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (-0.5%). AMD sits squarely in a cluster of mid-2010s discrete mobile parts, essentially matching the GeForce 830M and GT 745M.

Intel's HD Graphics 530, with its OpenCL score of 3550, lands near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M at 3316, a 0.5% delta in Intel's favor. The GeForce 920M sits at 3287 (1.4% ahead of Intel), while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 reaches 3389 (-1.7% relative to the 530). The GeForce GT 740 posts 3431, putting it 2.9% ahead. Intel's integrated graphics trails AMD's dedicated part by a clear margin in OpenCL, but its nearest rival list shows it competing with low-end discrete Nvidia chips rather than being entirely outclassed.

Expanding beyond the head-to-head, Intel's Metal score of 5025 would place it well above AMD's OpenCL result if compared across APIs, though such a comparison is apples-to-oranges. The Vulkan score of 1422 is notably lower, suggesting Intel's Vulkan drivers are less mature than its Metal or OpenCL paths. AMD has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores in the database, so no direct cross-API comparison is possible.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL performance in the head-to-head test?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.4% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 530's 3550 in the same test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: AMD's average benchmark score is 3956, matching its single OpenCL result. Intel's average is 3332, calculated from its three recorded scores: 5025 in Metal, 3550 in OpenCL, and 1422 in Vulkan.

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

A: AMD's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957, a 0% delta. Intel's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M at 3316, with Intel 0.5% ahead. Both GPUs cluster around early-2010s discrete mobile parts.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ROPs?

A: AMD has 320 shading units and 8 ROPs, while Intel has 192 shading units and only 3 ROPs. Intel compensates with 24 TMUs versus AMD's 20.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: AMD uses 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning performance varies with the host PC's RAM.

Q: Which GPU supports newer Vulkan and DirectX versions?

A: Intel supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while AMD supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). Intel has higher feature levels in both APIs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on workload. For OpenCL compute tasks, the AMD Radeon R5 M420 is the stronger option, delivering an 11.4% advantage over Intel in the direct head-to-head benchmark. Its higher shading unit count, more ROPs, and dedicated 4 GB memory pool give it predictable performance regardless of system RAM. The AMD part's 23rd percentile ranking also sits above Intel's 20th, reinforcing its slight overall edge in the database's global GPU rankings.

However, the Intel HD Graphics 530 should not be dismissed. Its Metal score of 5025 suggests strong performance in Apple's ecosystem, and its Vulkan support at version 1.3 offers broader compatibility than AMD's 1.2.170. The Intel chip also has a higher texture rate at 22.80 GTexel/s and a higher boost clock at 950 MHz, which can benefit texture-heavy workloads. The lower 15 W TDP, while not directly comparable to AMD's unlisted figure, indicates Intel's integrated design draws less power.

For users who prioritize raw compute in OpenCL environments, the AMD Radeon R5 M420 is the data-backed winner. For those who need Metal or Vulkan support, or who rely on system-shared memory flexibility, the Intel HD Graphics 530 offers capabilities AMD does not record. The database shows AMD winning the only direct comparison, but Intel wins the versatility contest across API coverage. Given that both parts are end-of-life, the practical choice depends entirely on which software stack the user's applications target.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M420 | Intel HD Graphics 530 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 9.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistors | 690 million | Not listed |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 780 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 850 MHz | 950 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.800 GPixel/s | 2.850 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.00 GTexel/s | 22.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 544.0 GFLOPS | 364.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | Not listed | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2015-08-31 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |