AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs Intel HD Graphics 630 Comparison

Intel HD Graphics 630 and AMD Radeon R7 M260 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different approaches to integrated and discrete graphics. The data shows a clear split: AMD's R7 M260 dominates in raw compute and modern API performance, while Intel's HD 630 leverages its integration and newer process node for efficiency. With only two head-to-head benchmark results, the verdict is one-sided, but the architectural context explains why.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous in favor of the AMD Radeon R7 M260. Across the two shared tests, the AMD part claims victory in both, with the Intel HD Graphics 630 winning zero comparisons. The most significant gap appears in Vulkan performance, where the R7 M260 scores 5289 against Intel's 3540, a massive 33.1% deficit for the Intel solution. This is not a marginal difference; it represents a generational leap in API efficiency and raw throughput that the older Intel architecture cannot match.

The Intel HD Graphics 630's only glimmer of competitiveness comes in the OpenCL test, where it scores 3587 versus 3708 for the R7 M260. The delta is just 3.3%, which is within the margin of run-to-run variance for many benchmark suites. In practical terms, this means the two are nearly equivalent for OpenCL workloads, but the AMD card still holds the edge. The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy: the R7 M260 averages 4499 across its tests, while the HD 630 averages 4075, a difference of roughly 424 points or about 10.4% in favor of AMD.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 630 lands at the 24th. While both are firmly in the lower half of the performance spectrum, the AMD part is slightly more capable relative to the entire GPU landscape. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based gaming or compute, the choice is clear. For OpenCL-specific tasks, the two are close enough that other system factors, such as memory configuration, could tip the scales.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture, specifically the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm++ process at Intel's own foundry. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Graphics Core Next 3.0 architecture, with the Topaz chip produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 14 nm++ versus 28 nm, giving Intel a significant manufacturing advantage in density and power efficiency, though the AMD chip compensates with a more powerful design.

The R7 M260 packs 1,550 million transistors onto a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. Intel does not disclose transistor counts or die size for the HD 630, but its 14 nm++ process implies a much smaller and denser implementation. The AMD chip's larger die and older node explain its higher power consumption, though the fact pack does not list a TDP for the R7 M260. The Intel part is rated at 15 W, which is typical for an integrated solution.

Core configuration highlights the AMD part's advantage in shading throughput. The R7 M260 features 384 shading units, double the 192 found in the HD 630. Both have 24 texture mapping units, but the AMD card has 8 ROPs versus just 3 for Intel. This translates directly to pixel throughput: the R7 M260 achieves 7.840 GPixel/s, while the HD 630 manages only 3.000 GPixel/s. Texture rates are nearly identical, with the AMD part at 23.52 GTexel/s and Intel at 24.00 GTexel/s, a negligible difference.

Memory is another differentiator. The R7 M260 comes with 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 630 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the Intel solution's performance is directly tied to the host system's RAM speed and configuration, while the AMD card has its own dedicated pool, ensuring consistent bandwidth regardless of system memory.

Clock speeds favor AMD as well. The R7 M260 runs at a base of 940 MHz with a boost up to 980 MHz, while the HD 630 operates at a 350 MHz base with a 1000 MHz boost. The AMD part's higher sustained clocks, combined with double the shading units, explain its superior FP32 performance: 752.6 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel. Interestingly, the HD 630 offers FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the R7 M260 provides FP16 at only 752.6 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning Intel has a slight edge in half-precision compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the closest contest between the two. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 trails at 3587. This 3.3% difference is small enough that it could be influenced by driver optimizations or system memory speed. In OpenCL workloads, the Intel part's Generation 9.5 architecture demonstrates respectable compute capability, but it still falls short of the R7 M260's GCN 3.0 design.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is where the gap widens dramatically. The R7 M260 posts a score of 5289, while the HD 630 manages only 3540. The 33.1% delta is the largest in the comparison and highlights the AMD card's superiority in modern graphics APIs. Vulkan is designed to reduce driver overhead and expose raw hardware capabilities, and the R7 M260's dedicated memory and higher shading unit count give it a decisive advantage. The Intel part's reliance on shared system memory may also bottleneck its Vulkan performance.

These two results produce a 2-0 win record for the R7 M260. The average benchmark score for each GPU reflects this dominance: the R7 M260's 4499 average is 424 points higher than the HD 630's 4075. The nearest rival data places the HD 630 alongside the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, with a delta of -0.4%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at +1%. The R7 M260 sits near the AMD FirePro W4190M with a -0.1% delta, indicating that both GPUs are performance peers within their respective tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan applications?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is significantly faster in Vulkan, scoring 5289 on Geekbench Vulkan compared to 3540 for the Intel HD Graphics 630, a 33.1% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The R7 M260 edges out the HD 630 in OpenCL with a score of 3708 versus 3587, a narrow 3.3% margin that makes them nearly equivalent for OpenCL workloads.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The R7 M260 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 630 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, double the 192 found in the HD 630. This contributes to its higher FP32 performance of 752.6 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The Intel HD 630 is fabricated on a 14 nm++ process, while the AMD R7 M260 uses a 28 nm process. The Intel part is built by Intel, and the AMD chip is built by TSMC.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R7 M260 averages 4499 across its benchmark tests, while the HD 630 averages 4075, giving the AMD part a roughly 10.4% higher average score.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is the superior performer in every measured benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average score, and occupies a slightly higher percentile ranking. For users who need Vulkan performance, the R7 M260 is the only rational choice, given its 33.1% lead. Even in OpenCL, where the gap narrows, the AMD card still comes out ahead.

The Intel HD Graphics 630's strengths lie elsewhere. Its 14 nm++ process and 15 W TDP suggest better power efficiency, and its integrated nature means no additional hardware is required. For systems where space and power are constraints, the HD 630 offers a capable IGP solution, but it cannot match the dedicated R7 M260 in raw performance. The R7 M260's double shading units, higher clocks, and dedicated memory make it the better option for any graphics-intensive task.

That said, both GPUs are end-of-life products, and their nearest rivals include similarly dated parts. The HD 630's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, with a negligible 0.4% difference, while the R7 M260 sits near the AMD FirePro W4190M. Neither GPU will satisfy modern gaming demands, but within their vintage, the R7 M260 is the clear winner. The verdict is straightforward: choose the R7 M260 for performance, or the HD 630 only if integration and power efficiency are paramount.