AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics P630 and AMD Radeon R6 M255DX are both integrated graphics parts aimed at different eras of mobile computing. The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between them, but the surrounding specifications and rival comparisons reveal a clear separation in capability and intended use. Intel’s part comes from a newer process node and a later release window, while AMD’s chip leans on a wider shading unit count and a more mature GCN architecture. The measured results show a modest but consistent lead for Intel in the one test where both were evaluated, yet the AMD part holds its own in raw pixel throughput and raw compute numbers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench Vulkan. Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5628, while AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867. That gives Intel a 15.6% advantage in this specific test. The delta is not enormous, but it is consistent with the newer architecture and higher boost clock on the Intel side. In Vulkan workloads, which tend to favor modern driver overhead and feature set support, the Intel part’s Generation 9.5 architecture and Vulkan 1.3 support clearly outperform AMD’s GCN 1.0 implementation with Vulkan 1.2.170.

If we look at the broader benchmark average, Intel’s average score across all recorded tests is 5370, while AMD’s average is 4867. That gap is 10.3% in favor of Intel, though it is importantly Intel has two benchmark entries (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan) while AMD only has one (Geekbench Vulkan). The OpenCL score for Intel is 5111, which is lower than its Vulkan score, so the average is pulled down by that second test. Even so, the Intel part’s average sits comfortably above AMD’s single result.

The nearest rival data puts both parts in a similar performance class, but with different reference points. Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include AMD Radeon R7 M445 (average score 5358, delta 0.2%), AMD Radeon R7 M365X (average score 5416, delta -0.8%), NVIDIA GeForce 840M (average score 5322, delta 0.9%), and NVIDIA GeForce 930A (average score 5317, delta 1%). This means the Intel part is essentially at parity with those older discrete mobile GPUs, with a slight edge over the GeForce 930A and a slight deficit to the R7 M365X.

AMD Radeon R6 M255DX sits at the 28th percentile, just three points lower than Intel. Its nearest rivals include NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (average score 4855, delta 0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (average score 4844, delta 0.5%), NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (average score 4893, delta -0.5%), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (average score 4901, delta -0.7%). The inclusion of a modern high-end card like the RTX 5060 Ti in that list is anomalous, but the delta is only -0.7%, meaning the AMD part is essentially tied with it in this database’s average scoring. That is likely a quirk of the benchmark averaging, but it does place the R6 M255DX in a similar performance band to Intel’s part.

The head-to-head win count is 1 for Intel and 0 for AMD. That single win is the Vulkan test, with a 15.6% margin. No other direct comparisons exist in the database, so the overall picture is drawn from the average scores and the rival comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in any scenario that relies on modern API support and driver efficiency. The Vulkan score of 5628 is the highest recorded number for either part, and it comes with Vulkan 1.3 support versus AMD’s Vulkan 1.2.170. DirectX 12 support is also superior on Intel: it lists DirectX 12 (12_1) while AMD lists DirectX 12 (11_1). That means Intel can handle more recent game titles and compute workloads that use the full DirectX 12 feature set. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock (1200 MHz versus 855 MHz) and a higher texture rate (28.80 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s). For texture-heavy workloads, Intel has a 68.4% advantage in theoretical texture fill rate.

AMD Radeon R6 M255DX wins in raw pixel throughput and raw shading unit count. It has 8 ROPs versus Intel’s 3 ROPs, which gives it a pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s compared to Intel’s 3.600 GPixel/s. That is an 90% advantage in pixel fill rate. For older games that are fill-rate limited, or for any workload that writes a lot of pixels to the frame buffer, the AMD part is clearly stronger. It also has 320 shading units versus Intel’s 192, which gives it a higher theoretical FP32 throughput: 547.2 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS. That is a 18.8% advantage in raw compute. So if a workload is purely compute-bound and does not rely on modern API features, the AMD part can outperform Intel despite its older architecture.

The AMD part also has a higher base clock (780 MHz versus 350 MHz), which means it sustains performance better under steady loads. The lower base clock on Intel is likely a power-saving measure, but it means the Intel part relies heavily on boost behavior to reach its peak scores. In sustained workloads where boost clocks cannot be maintained, AMD’s higher base clock could be an advantage, though the database does not provide sustained clock data.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors Intel UHD Graphics P630 for anyone who cares about modern API compatibility and overall benchmark scores. The 15.6% lead in Vulkan, the higher average score (5370 versus 4867), and the superior DirectX and Vulkan feature sets make it the better choice for current games and compute applications. The 31st percentile versus 28th percentile also puts Intel in a slightly higher overall performance class.

AMD Radeon R6 M255DX remains relevant for older software and for tasks that are heavily pixel-bound or raw-compute-bound. Its 6.840 GPixel/s pixel rate and 547.2 GFLOPS FP32 are both higher than Intel’s, and its 320 shading units provide more parallel compute paths. If you are running legacy DirectX 11 titles or OpenGL workloads that do not use modern API features, the AMD part can match or beat Intel in specific scenarios. However, the lack of a Vulkan score above 4867 and the absence of an OpenCL benchmark in the database means there is no evidence that AMD can sustain a win in any modern cross-platform test.

For a new purchase or a system build today, Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the safer pick. It is end-of-life, as is the AMD part, but it is from a later release date (May 2020 versus January 2014) and uses a 14 nm+++ process node versus AMD’s 28 nm. The process advantage alone explains much of the performance delta. For retro gaming or for running very old software where the AMD part’s pixel rate matters, the R6 M255DX could be considered, but the benchmark data does not provide any direct test where AMD wins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench Vulkan score?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5628, while AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867. Intel leads by 15.6% in that test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX have any performance advantage over the Intel part?

A: Yes, in theoretical pixel rate and FP32 compute. AMD has 6.840 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 3.600 GPixel/s, and 547.2 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS. AMD also has 320 shading units versus Intel’s 192.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports Vulkan 1.3, while AMD Radeon R6 M255DX supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 has an average benchmark score of 5370. AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has an average benchmark score of 4867.

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

A: Intel is within 1% of AMD Radeon R7 M445, AMD Radeon R7 M365X, NVIDIA GeForce 840M, and NVIDIA GeForce 930A. AMD is within 0.7% of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M, GeForce 940MX, GeForce GTS 450, and GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a boost clock of 1200 MHz. AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has a boost clock of 855 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture, built on a 14 nm+++ process node at Intel’s foundry. The chip is called Comet Lake GT2, and it belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) generation. It uses a Ring Bus interface and has 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 ROPs. The low ROP count is a clear indicator that this is a power-efficient iGPU designed for mainstream laptops with modest display resolutions.

AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process node at TSMC. The chip is called Jet, and it belongs to the Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200) generation. It has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The transistor count is 690 million, and the die size is 56 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². This is a much older design, but the higher ROP and shading unit counts show that AMD packed more raw hardware into a smaller, older process.

Intel’s architecture is more modern in terms of API support and feature set. It lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. AMD lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX feature level difference is significant: 12_1 includes features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views, which are absent in 11_1. This means Intel can handle newer game engines that rely on those features, while AMD may fall back to compatibility paths.

Both parts use system shared memory, meaning they have no dedicated VRAM. The memory type, bus width, and size are all marked as “System Shared” in the database. Memory bandwidth is listed as “System Dependent” for both, so actual performance will vary based on the host system’s RAM configuration. This is typical for integrated graphics, but it also means that the performance deltas seen in the benchmarks could shift with different memory speeds or dual-channel versus single-channel configurations.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are as follows:

• Process Node: Intel uses 14 nm+++; AMD uses 28 nm.
• Foundry: Intel is fabricated by Intel; AMD is fabricated by TSMC.
• Transistors: AMD has 690 million; Intel has no recorded transistor count.
• Die Size: AMD has 56 mm²; Intel has no recorded die size.
• Transistor Density: AMD has 12.3M per mm²; Intel has no recorded density.
• Base Clock: Intel is 350 MHz; AMD is 780 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel is 1200 MHz; AMD is 855 MHz.
• Shading Units: Intel has 192; AMD has 320.
• Texture Mapping Units: Intel has 24; AMD has 20.
• ROPs: Intel has 3; AMD has 8.
• Pixel Rate: Intel is 3.600 GPixel/s; AMD is 6.840 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Intel is 28.80 GTexel/s; AMD is 17.10 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: Intel is 460.8 GFLOPS; AMD is 547.2 GFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: Intel is 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1); AMD has no recorded FP16.
• TDP: Intel is 15 W; AMD has no recorded TDP.
• Bus Interface: Intel is Ring Bus; AMD is IGP.
• DirectX Support: Intel is 12 (12_1); AMD is 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan Support: Intel is 1.3; AMD is 1.2.170.
• Release Date: Intel is May 2020; AMD is January 2014.
• Display Outputs: Intel is Motherboard Dependent; AMD is Portable Device Dependent.
• Production Status: Both are end-of-life.

The clock differences are notable: AMD’s base clock is more than double Intel’s, but Intel’s boost clock is 40% higher than AMD’s. This suggests Intel uses aggressive boost behavior to reach its scores, while AMD runs at a more constant, higher baseline. The TDP of 15 W for Intel is recorded, while AMD has no TDP listed, so direct power comparison is not possible from the data.

The release date gap of over six years explains much of the architectural advantage. Intel’s part is from 2020, while AMD’s is from 2014. The 14 nm process node allows Intel to achieve higher texture rates and better API support with fewer shading units. AMD compensates with raw hardware count, but the older GCN architecture cannot match Intel’s efficiency in modern workloads. The database shows Intel winning the only direct comparison, and the specification differences align with that result.