AMD Radeon R7 240 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single decisive benchmark result between these two GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 points. This gives Intel a 12.8% advantage in raw compute performance. The Intel part wins the only head-to-head matchup, placing it in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the AMD card sits at the 30th percentile.

Context from their respective nearest rivals helps frame these scores. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, which scores 5721 points, a difference of only 0.1%. It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti by just 0.3%, which scores 5731. Meanwhile, it leads the AMD Radeon HD 8790M by 0.4% and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.9%. This clustering suggests the Intel integrated part operates in the same performance tier as those discrete mobile and desktop cards, all within a narrow 2% band.

The AMD Radeon R7 240, with its 5063-point score, sits exactly level with the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which also scores 5063, showing a 0% delta. It leads the AMD FirePro W4170M by 0.6% and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 by 0.9%. The closest rival above it is the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998, which the R7 240 beats by 1.3%. The data indicates the R7 240 is positioned at the lower end of its peer group, whereas the Intel Iris Pro P6300 sits near the upper middle of its comparison set.

The 12.8% performance gap between the two contenders is substantial in this benchmark context. Looking at the nearest rivals, a 12.8% difference is roughly equivalent to the gap between several distinct performance tiers. For example, the AMD Radeon R7 240's closest competitor above it, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998, is only 1.3% behind, meaning the Intel part is more than nine times that distance ahead of the AMD card.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture and a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel itself. It belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) generation. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm. The AMD chip does report specific transistor and die details, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Intel part does not have these figures recorded in the database, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the available data.

Compute resource allocation differs notably. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 packs 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 raster output units. The AMD Radeon R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the AMD card has more ROPs, which typically benefits pixel throughput. The pixel rate data confirms this: the AMD card delivers 6.240 GPixel/s versus Intel's 4.800 GPixel/s, a clear AMD advantage in rasterization throughput. However, the texture rate reverses the picture: Intel achieves 38.40 GTexel/s against AMD's 15.60 GTexel/s, more than double the texture fill rate. Floating point performance follows the shading unit count, with Intel at 614.4 GFLOPS and AMD at 499.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds also differ. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock with an 800 MHz boost. The AMD card has a 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The AMD card's higher base clock helps it in sustained workloads, but the Intel part's boost clock exceeds the AMD boost by 20 MHz. Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Intel Iris Pro uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 has a dedicated 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card's memory clock is listed at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective data rate.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The Intel integrated GPU has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a ring bus interface, meaning it has no slot width, power connectors, or suggested PSU. The AMD discrete card has a 30 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. It measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

API support shows generational differences. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), but the AMD card supports OpenGL 4.6 versus Intel's 4.4, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus Intel's 1.0. The AMD card also has defined display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), while the Intel output configuration is motherboard dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins decisively in compute-heavy and texture-heavy workloads. Its 614.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance represents a 23% advantage over the AMD card's 499.2 GFLOPS. The texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s is more than double the AMD's 15.60 GTexel/s, making the Intel part substantially stronger for any workload that stresses texture sampling, such as certain filtering operations or procedural generation tasks.

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins in pixel throughput scenarios. Its 6.240 GPixel/s pixel rate is 30% higher than Intel's 4.800 GPixel/s. This gives the AMD card an edge in fill-rate-bound situations, particularly at lower resolutions where pixel shading dominates. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth also provides a stable, predictable memory subsystem, whereas the Intel part depends entirely on system memory, making its bandwidth variable and system dependent.

The AMD card's higher base clock of 730 MHz versus Intel's 300 MHz suggests it can maintain consistent performance in sustained loads without relying on boost behavior. The Intel part's boost clock of 800 MHz is higher than AMD's 780 MHz boost, but the Intel base is dramatically lower, meaning the Intel GPU may be more sensitive to thermal or power constraints in prolonged workloads.

For system integration, the Intel IGP wins on power efficiency with a 15 W TDP versus 30 W, and it requires no additional board space. The AMD card, while compact at single-slot, still needs a physical PCIe slot and a 200 W suggested PSU, making it less suitable for small form factor or low-power builds.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.8% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 240's score of 5063.

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

A: The Intel part is nearly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721, 0.1% faster) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731, 0.3% faster). The AMD card is exactly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has 384 shading units compared to the AMD Radeon R7 240's 320 shading units. Intel also has 48 TMUs versus AMD's 20, but AMD has 8 ROPs versus Intel's 6.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has a 15 W TDP and is an integrated GPU. The AMD Radeon R7 240 has a 30 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel Iris Pro P6300 supports OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro P6300 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Process node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 950 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 77 mm² |

| Transistor density | Not recorded | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 300 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost clock | 800 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Memory size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory bus | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 48 | 20 |

| ROPs | 6 | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 4.800 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 38.40 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 614.4 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 30 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 200 W |

| Bus interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |

| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 168 mm length, 69 mm height |

| Release date | 2014-09-04 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 69 USD |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. Its 5712 Geekbench OpenCL score beats the AMD Radeon R7 240's 5063 by 12.8%, and it holds advantages in shading units, texture rate, FP32 compute, and power efficiency. The Intel part is also newer, released in September 2014 versus October 2013, and uses a more advanced 14 nm process.

However, the AMD Radeon R7 240 has its own justifications. It offers a dedicated 2 GB memory buffer with fixed 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, which is preferable for consistency in gaming or rendering workloads that cannot tolerate system memory contention. Its higher pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s and greater ROP count make it better suited for fill-rate-limited scenarios. The AMD card also supports newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions, which may matter for compatibility with newer applications.

For users building a low-power, space-constrained system where the CPU already provides integrated graphics, the Intel Iris Pro P6300 is the stronger compute choice. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor require no additional hardware. For users who need a discrete card with predictable memory performance and have a PCIe slot available, the AMD Radeon R7 240 offers competitive pixel throughput and a dedicated frame buffer, but it trails in overall compute and texture performance. The benchmark data favors Intel for general-purpose GPU compute, while AMD retains specific advantages in rasterization and API support.