AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M350 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, one as a dedicated discrete part and the other as an integrated solution. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear winner in raw compute performance, but the specification sheets reveal distinct design philosophies that matter for different use cases. This analysis draws exclusively from the database measurements and recorded specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between these two parts, using Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991 points, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712 points. This represents a delta of 22.4 percent in favor of the AMD part, a substantial margin that places the two firmly in different performance tiers.

To put this into context, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel part sits at the 33rd percentile. While both are in the lower half of the overall distribution, the gap between them is not trivial. A 22.4 percent lead in OpenCL compute suggests that the AMD part delivers noticeably more raw processing power for tasks that can leverage general-purpose GPU compute, such as video encoding, image processing, or physics simulations.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Radeon R7 M350 further illustrate its position. Its average benchmark score is 6327, which is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (a delta of 0 percent). It also sits within 0.7 percent of the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282) and within 0.9 percent of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, each scoring 6270. The fact that a mobile Radeon part from the R7 M300 series lands within a fraction of a percent of modern desktop-class GPUs in this particular workload is a striking data point, though the benchmark is compute-focused rather than gaming-oriented.

For the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, the nearest rivals paint a slightly different picture. Its average score is 5712, and it sits within 0.1 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721) and within 0.3 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731). It is also 0.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691) and 1.9 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604). This clustering suggests that the Intel integrated part performs at a level comparable to older mid-range discrete mobile GPUs, which is notable given that it shares system memory and has no dedicated VRAM.

The head-to-head record shows one win for the AMD part and zero wins for the Intel part. That single win is the OpenCL test, and the margin is decisive. If the database had more test categories, the picture might differ, but based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the clear compute winner.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6327, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has an average score of 5712. The AMD part leads by 615 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712. The AMD part wins by 22.4 percent.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 is at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is at the 33rd percentile.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 have any benchmark wins over the AMD part?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD Radeon R7 M350 with one win and the Intel part with zero wins.

Q: How does the AMD part compare to its closest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has an average score of 6327, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average score of 6330, resulting in a delta of 0 percent, meaning they are effectively tied.

Q: How does the Intel part compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has an average score of 5712, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX has an average score of 5721, a delta of -0.1 percent, meaning the Intel part is marginally behind.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the faster GPU in compute workloads. With a 22.4 percent lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a higher average score across all recorded benchmarks, it outperforms the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 by a clear margin. The AMD part also holds a higher percentile ranking, 36th versus 33rd, confirming that it sits above its rival in the broader performance distribution.

Who should choose the AMD Radeon R7 M350? The data suggests anyone whose workload relies heavily on OpenCL compute, such as video rendering, scientific calculations, or GPU-accelerated applications. The 22.4 percent advantage in this specific test is meaningful, and the fact that it lands within 0.9 percent of much newer desktop GPUs in the same benchmark indicates that it is a capable part for its era. The AMD part also has a dedicated 4 GB DDR3 memory pool with a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which means it does not compete with the CPU for system memory.

Who should choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300? The data shows that it is not a compute powerhouse, but it has other virtues. It is an integrated part with a 15 W TDP, which means it consumes far less power than any discrete solution. It also uses system shared memory, which means no separate VRAM allocation is required. For users who prioritize power efficiency over raw compute, or who need a simple integrated solution without a separate graphics card, the Intel part is a valid option. Its performance is within 0.3 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, a once-popular discrete card, so it is not weak, it is just not as strong as the AMD part.

The verdict is clear: the AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins on performance, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins on efficiency and integration. The choice depends on the user's priority.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every core specification. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses a 14 nm process node from Intel. The AMD part has a transistor count of 1,550 million on a die size of 125 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, so no direct comparison is possible for those fields.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD part has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz, with memory running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz, with system shared memory that is system dependent. This means the AMD part runs at more than three times the base clock speed of the Intel part.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth. There is no dedicated VRAM on the Intel part.

The shading unit count is identical at 384 for both, but other units differ. The AMD part has 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 8 render output units (ROPs), while the Intel part has 48 TMUs and 6 ROPs. This means the Intel part has double the TMUs but fewer ROPs.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The AMD part achieves 8.120 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s. The Intel part achieves 4.800 GPixel/s and 38.40 GTexel/s. The AMD part has a higher pixel rate, while the Intel part has a higher texture rate.

Compute performance in FP32 is 779.5 GFLOPS for the AMD part, compared to 614.4 GFLOPS for the Intel part. The AMD part also has an FP16 rate of 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel part has no recorded FP16 rate.

The bus interface also differs: the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The Intel part is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, while the AMD part has no recorded TDP or slot width in the database. Display outputs on the Intel part are motherboard dependent, while the AMD part has no recorded display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is wide. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 is built on GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Meso chip, and belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses Generation 8.0 architecture, based on the Broadwell GT3e chip, and belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) generation.

The process nodes reflect different manufacturing eras. AMD used a 28 nm process at TSMC, while Intel used a 14 nm process at its own foundry. The smaller node gives Intel a potential density advantage, but the database shows no transistor count or die size for the Intel part, so this cannot be quantified here.

The memory architecture is another key difference. The AMD part has dedicated DDR3 memory, which provides consistent bandwidth without competing with the CPU. The Intel part relies on system shared memory, which is flexible but dependent on the rest of the system's memory configuration. This affects both latency and bandwidth, though the exact impact is system dependent.

The API support differs significantly. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part has a newer DirectX feature level and a more recent Vulkan version, which may matter for compatibility with newer applications.

The shading architecture also differs. Both have 384 shading units, but the AMD part arranges them in a GCN 3.0 design with 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while the Intel part uses a Generation 8.0 design with 48 TMUs and 6 ROPs. The higher TMU count on the Intel part explains its higher texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s, but the higher ROP count on the AMD part explains its higher pixel rate of 8.120 GPixel/s.

Finally, the production status and release dates differ. The AMD part was released on May 4, 2015, and is end-of-life. The Intel part was released on September 4, 2014, and is also end-of-life. The AMD part lists its predecessor as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile, while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark results. The AMD part has a higher clock speed, dedicated memory, and a newer API set, all of which contribute to its 22.4 percent lead in OpenCL. The Intel part, despite its smaller process node and higher texture rate, cannot overcome the disadvantages of lower clocks and shared memory in compute workloads. The data shows that in this matchup, dedicated resources and higher clocks win over architectural efficiency.