AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs AMD Radeon R7 M265 — two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras. The Intel part is an integrated processor graphics unit built on the modern 14 nm+++ process, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 is a 28 nm discrete GPU from 2014. Benchmark data shows the Intel UHD Graphics P630 holds a narrow but consistent edge in the one available head-to-head test, landing in the 31st percentile of all GPUs versus the AMD card’s 29th percentile. The rest of this analysis breaks down where each part wins, what the numbers mean in context, and how their specifications diverge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are close. Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 points, while AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929 points. That gives Intel a 3.7% lead — a modest but definitive win in this workload. In absolute terms, the difference is just 182 points, which places both cards in the same performance tier for compute tasks.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, Intel UHD Graphics P630 has an average benchmark score of 5370 across all tested workloads, which is 4.9% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M265’s average of 4929. This suggests the Intel part’s advantage in OpenCL is not an outlier — it carries over across other tests as well. The Intel GPU also shows a Vulkan score of 5628, a test the AMD part does not have a recorded result for, indicating Intel’s API support is more complete in newer graphics frameworks.

The nearest rival data reinforces this picture. Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, +1%), NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, +0.9%), and AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, +0.2%), while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M365X by 0.8% (5416). AMD Radeon R7 M265, by contrast, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931, 0% delta) and AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, +0.5%), and it edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, +0.7%) by a hair. Interestingly, the AMD part is listed as comparable to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, +0.6%) — though that likely reflects the specific benchmark score rather than real-world gaming performance.

In practical terms, the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 3.7% OpenCL advantage over the Radeon R7 M265 is within the margin of error for many workloads, but the consistency of the average score gap (5370 vs 4929) makes it clear the Intel part is the stronger compute performer overall. Neither card is competitive with modern GPUs — both sit in the bottom third of all graphics processors — but between these two, Intel holds the edge.

Where Each One Wins

Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins the only direct head-to-head test available, taking the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark with a 3.7% margin. It also has a higher average benchmark score across all tests (5370 vs 4929), a higher percentile ranking (31st vs 29th), and a Vulkan benchmark result (5628) that the AMD card cannot match. In compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the Intel part is the clear choice. The Intel GPU also has a higher texture fill rate (28.80 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s) despite having the same number of texture mapping units (24), which points to better texture throughput in pixel-heavy workloads.

AMD Radeon R7 M265 wins on raw pixel throughput. Its pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s is 83% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 3.600 GPixel/s, driven by a much larger ROP count (8 vs 3). This means the AMD card is better suited for tasks that hammer the render output units — such as basic rasterization at lower resolutions — even if its overall compute performance lags. The AMD part also has double the shading units (384 vs 192) and a higher FP32 throughput (633.6 GFLOPS vs 460.8 GFLOPS), which gives it a theoretical advantage in shader-bound workloads that are not reflected in the Geekbench OpenCL score. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth also means the AMD card does not compete with the CPU for system memory bandwidth, which can be an advantage in multitasking scenarios where the Intel IGP shares system RAM.

For gaming, neither part is a strong option by modern standards. The Intel GPU’s higher texture rate and better average benchmark score suggest it handles modern API workloads more efficiently, while the AMD card’s higher pixel rate and dedicated memory might give it an edge in older titles that rely on fill-rate-limited rendering. For non-gaming compute tasks like OpenCL acceleration, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the better performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 has an average benchmark score of 5370, which is 441 points (about 8.9%) higher than AMD Radeon R7 M265’s average of 4929.

Q: How much faster is the Intel GPU in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 versus AMD Radeon R7 M265’s 4929, a 3.7% advantage for the Intel part.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M265 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan 1.2.170, but there is no recorded Vulkan benchmark score for it. Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports Vulkan 1.3 and scores 5628 in the Geekbench Vulkan test.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: AMD Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, exactly double the 192 shading units found in Intel UHD Graphics P630, but the Intel part still wins in overall compute benchmarks.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: AMD Radeon R7 M265 has a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s, which is 83% higher than Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 3.600 GPixel/s, due to the AMD card’s 8 ROPs versus Intel’s 3.

Q: Which GPU has a better texture fill rate?

A: Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s, which is 45% higher than AMD Radeon R7 M265’s 19.80 GTexel/s, even though both have 24 texture mapping units.

Specification Differences

Intel UHD Graphics P630 and AMD Radeon R7 M265 differ across nearly every core specification. The Intel chip is built on a 14 nm+++ process by Intel, while the AMD chip uses TSMC’s 28 nm process. The AMD GPU is a discrete chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die (12.3M transistors per mm²), whereas the Intel part is an integrated GPU with no listed transistor or die size data.

Clock speeds differ significantly. Intel UHD Graphics P630 runs at a base clock of 350 MHz and boosts to 1200 MHz. AMD Radeon R7 M265 runs at a higher base clock of 725 MHz and boosts to 825 MHz. Memory configurations are also different: the Intel IGP uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the AMD card has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

Compute resources favor AMD in raw counts. The Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. However, the Intel part has higher texture rate (28.80 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s) and lower pixel rate (3.600 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s). FP32 performance is higher on the AMD card (633.6 GFLOPS vs 460.8 GFLOPS), and the Intel GPU also lists FP16 performance of 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio) which the AMD card does not specify.

The Intel GPU is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Power draw is listed at 15 W for the Intel part, with no TDP listed for the AMD card. API support differs: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates are far apart — May 2020 for Intel versus January 2014 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture (specifically the Comet Lake GT2 chip), which is Intel’s modern integrated graphics design. AMD Radeon R7 M265 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture (chip codename Opal), which is a first-generation Graphics Core Next design from AMD’s older R7 M200 series.

The process node gap is substantial: Intel uses a 14 nm+++ process from its own foundry, while AMD uses TSMC’s 28 nm process. This gives Intel a density advantage that helps explain how an integrated GPU with fewer shading units can match or beat a discrete GPU with twice the shader count. The AMD chip’s 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die yield a density of 12.3M transistors per mm², but the older architecture is less efficient per transistor.

Intel’s Generation 9.5 architecture is designed for low power (15 W TDP) and integrates directly onto the CPU die, sharing system memory. AMD’s GCN 1.0 is a discrete mobile GPU with dedicated GDDR memory, but it lacks the modern feature set of Intel’s newer design. The API support differences reflect this: Intel supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, while AMD is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card’s predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile, while Intel’s chip has no listed predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products, but the Intel part is six years newer, which explains its better benchmark performance despite being integrated.