AMD Radeon R7 240 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics P630 and AMD Radeon R7 240 represent two very different approaches to low-end graphics: one is an integrated processor graphics solution from Intel’s Comet Lake generation, while the other is a dedicated discrete GPU from AMD’s Volcanic Islands family. Benchmark data shows they are extremely close in overall compute performance, but their architectural identities and target use cases diverge sharply. The Intel part edges out a narrow win in the single available head-to-head benchmark, though the AMD card counters with a dedicated memory interface and higher raw pixel throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is remarkably tight. Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111, while AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. That gives Intel a 0.9% advantage, a margin so small it falls well within typical run-to-run variance for synthetic compute workloads. The Intel part’s average benchmark score across all tests is 5370, compared to 5063 for the AMD card — a broader gap of roughly 6% when factoring in the Vulkan result that only Intel has. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, Intel UHD Graphics P630 posts 5628, which is notably higher than its OpenCL score and suggests stronger driver optimization for modern APIs.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database puts these numbers in context. Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitors being AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, 0.2% slower), NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, 0.9% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 1% slower). The AMD Radeon R7 240 lands at the 30th percentile, with its nearest rivals including AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, identical score), AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, 0.6% slower), and AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.9% slower). What the head-to-head data reveals is that both products occupy nearly the same performance tier, trading blows with mobile and entry-level discrete GPUs from several generations ago.

The practical implication is that in OpenCL compute workloads, neither card offers a meaningful advantage over the other. The 0.9% delta is essentially negligible for real-world tasks like video encoding or GPU-accelerated filters. However, the Intel part’s Vulkan score of 5628 suggests it may handle newer graphics APIs better, which could translate to smoother performance in titles that leverage Vulkan for rendering. The AMD card has no Vulkan benchmark recorded, so direct comparison on that front is impossible from the available data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is wide. Intel UHD Graphics P630 is built on the Generation 9.5 architecture using Intel’s 14 nm+++ process node, fabricated in-house by Intel. It features the Comet Lake GT2 chip and belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) generation. The AMD Radeon R7 240 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with the Oland chip and a 950 million transistor count on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: AMD packs 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter, while Intel’s part lists no transistor or die size figures in the data.

Shading unit counts differ significantly. The AMD Radeon R7 240 has 320 shading units, while Intel UHD Graphics P630 has only 192. Texture mapping units favor Intel with 24 vs. AMD’s 20, but raster operation units heavily favor AMD at 8 vs. Intel’s 3. This explains the pixel rate disparity: AMD delivers 6.240 GPixel/s compared to Intel’s 3.600 GPixel/s. Intel counteracts with a much higher texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s vs. AMD’s 15.60 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, AMD edges out Intel with 499.2 GFLOPS vs. 460.8 GFLOPS. Intel additionally supports FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature AMD’s GCN 1.0 implementation does not expose.

Clock speeds tell another story. AMD runs at a 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost, while Intel operates at a 350 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. The Intel part’s higher boost clock helps it close the compute gap despite fewer shading units. Memory configuration is a fundamental differentiator: AMD has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, whereas Intel uses system shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are system dependent. This means the AMD card’s memory performance is fixed and predictable, while Intel’s depends entirely on the host system’s RAM configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: AMD Radeon R7 240 has a slight edge in FP32, delivering 499.2 GFLOPS vs. Intel’s 460.8 GFLOPS. However, Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS, which AMD does not offer.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: AMD Radeon R7 240 uses 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Intel UHD Graphics P630 relies on system shared memory, making its bus width and bandwidth system dependent.

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins by 0.9%, scoring 5111 vs. AMD’s 5063. This is a very narrow margin that falls within typical benchmark variance.

Q: What are their process nodes and transistor counts?

A: Intel uses a 14 nm+++ process with no transistor count listed. AMD uses a 28 nm process from TSMC with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Do both support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. Intel supports Vulkan 1.3, while AMD supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Intel’s DirectX support is 12 (12_1), while AMD’s is 12 (11_1).

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a TDP of 15 W and is an integrated GPU (IGP). AMD Radeon R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W, requires a 200 W suggested PSU, uses no power connectors, and is a single-slot card.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node: Intel uses 14 nm+++ vs. AMD’s 28 nm. Foundry: Intel fabricates in-house, while AMD uses TSMC. Transistor count and die size: AMD lists 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die with 12.3M/mm² density; Intel lists none of these figures. Clock speeds: AMD runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost, while Intel runs at 350 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Memory: AMD has 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth; Intel uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Compute units: AMD has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; Intel has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. Pixel rate: AMD delivers 6.240 GPixel/s vs. Intel’s 3.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate: Intel delivers 28.80 GTexel/s vs. AMD’s 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32: AMD has 499.2 GFLOPS vs. Intel’s 460.8 GFLOPS. FP16: Intel supports 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1); AMD has no FP16 data. TDP: Intel is 15 W vs. AMD’s 30 W. Slot width: Intel is IGP, AMD is single-slot. Power connectors: AMD has none; Intel has none listed. Suggested PSU: AMD lists 200 W; Intel lists none. Bus interface: Intel uses Ring Bus, AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: Intel is motherboard dependent, AMD has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA. Dimensions: AMD is 168 mm long and 69 mm high; Intel lists no dimensions. Release date: Intel launched May 2020, AMD launched October 2013. API versions differ: Intel has Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), AMD has Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1).

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: these GPUs are performance peers in compute workloads, but they serve fundamentally different roles. Intel UHD Graphics P630 is an integrated solution with a 15 W TDP, designed to ride alongside a Comet Lake processor. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 0.9% and has a higher average benchmark score (5370 vs. 5063) thanks to its Vulkan result. Its FP16 support and superior texture rate make it arguably better suited for compute tasks that leverage those features. The AMD Radeon R7 240, meanwhile, is a dedicated card with its own 2 GB of DDR3 memory, a 128-bit bus, and fixed bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. It offers higher pixel throughput (6.240 GPixel/s) and greater FP32 compute (499.2 GFLOPS), but its 30 W TDP and 2013 release date reflect an older design philosophy.

For users building or upgrading a system with an existing Comet Lake CPU, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the obvious choice — it costs nothing extra, consumes minimal power, and matches the discrete card’s compute performance. For those needing a dedicated GPU with predictable memory bandwidth and a single-slot form factor, the AMD Radeon R7 240 remains a functional option, albeit one from a much older generation. The Intel part’s Vulkan 1.3 support and higher average benchmark score suggest better modern software compatibility, while AMD’s dedicated memory ensures consistent performance regardless of system RAM. Neither card is a gaming powerhouse — both sit near the 30th percentile of all GPUs — but the Intel solution offers comparable performance at a fraction of the power draw, while the AMD card provides a discrete upgrade path for legacy systems. The data ultimately favors Intel for overall versatility and modern API support, with AMD retaining advantages only in pixel rate and dedicated memory capacity.