AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

# Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs AMD Radeon R7 M360

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 M360 in both available benchmark tests, winning 2 out of 2 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel part scores 10.2% higher in Geekbench OpenCL and 7.8% higher in Geekbench Vulkan, making it the stronger choice for general compute and graphics workloads. The R7 M360 retains relevance only in scenarios favoring its dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory and higher raw pixel throughput, but the data does not support choosing it over the Intel solution for performance-sensitive tasks.

The Verdict

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the clear winner based on benchmark data. Its average benchmark score of 5370 places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 averages 4931, sitting in the 29th percentile. The Intel part wins both head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 5111 versus 4638 (a 10.2% advantage) and Geekbench Vulkan at 5628 versus 5223 (a 7.8% advantage). For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 delivers consistently higher performance. The R7 M360's only edge lies in its dedicated memory configuration and higher pixel rate — 9.000 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s — but this does not translate to benchmark victories. The data suggests the Intel part is the safer choice for integrated graphics users, while the AMD part may appeal to those needing a discrete GPU with faster pixel fill, though at the cost of overall compute performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel's UHD Graphics P630 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture, built on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's foundry, with the Comet Lake GT2 chip. It integrates 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 ROPs. Memory is entirely system shared, with bandwidth labeled "System Dependent," meaning performance scales with the host system's RAM. The AMD Radeon R7 M360, by contrast, uses the GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, featuring the Meso chip with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. It packs 384 shading units — double the Intel part — along with 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The AMD GPU has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The transistor density highlights the process gap: Intel's 14 nm+++ achieves a smaller die with fewer transistors, while AMD's 28 nm design uses a larger die and more transistors. The AMD part also supports a 1:1 FP16 ratio, whereas Intel's FP16 runs at 2:1, meaning Intel delivers higher peak FP16 throughput (921.6 GFLOPS versus 864.0 GFLOPS) despite lower FP32 compute (460.8 GFLOPS versus 864.0 GFLOPS). API support differs as well: Intel supports DirectX 12_1, while AMD only reaches DirectX 12_0, though both offer OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support favors Intel at version 1.3 versus AMD's 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in all benchmark comparisons available in the data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5111 and Vulkan score of 5628 both exceed the AMD R7 M360's 4638 and 5223, respectively. This means for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration or Vulkan-based rendering, the Intel part is faster by double-digit margins in OpenCL and nearly 8% in Vulkan. The Intel GPU also benefits from a newer production status (released May 2020 versus May 2015 for AMD) and a more advanced 14 nm+++ process, which likely contributes to its efficiency. The AMD Radeon R7 M360, however, holds advantages in specific hardware metrics that could matter in niche scenarios. Its pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s is 2.5 times higher than Intel's 3.600 GPixel/s, suggesting faster fill-rate-bound operations. It also has 8 ROPs versus Intel's 3, which could improve performance in certain rasterization workloads. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth offers predictable performance, unlike Intel's system-dependent memory. The AMD part's texture rate of 27.00 GTexel/s is close to Intel's 28.80 GTexel/s, so texture-heavy tasks are roughly comparable. But the benchmark data shows no scenario where the AMD GPU wins, so these hardware advantages do not manifest in real-world compute tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5370 on average, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4931. This gives Intel a significant edge in overall performance.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: Intel wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 5628 versus AMD's 5223, a 7.8% advantage for the Intel part.

Q: Does the AMD R7 M360 have more shading units than the Intel UHD P630?

A: Yes, AMD has 384 shading units compared to Intel's 192, yet Intel still achieves higher benchmark scores, indicating Intel's architecture is more efficient per shader.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while AMD has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better pixel throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 offers 9.000 GPixel/s, which is 2.5 times higher than Intel's 3.600 GPixel/s, suggesting AMD excels in pixel-fill-limited scenarios.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the Intel UHD Graphics P630 and AMD Radeon R7 M360 are listed as end-of-life production status in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 dominates the AMD Radeon R7 M360 in both recorded benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, Intel scores 5111 against AMD's 4638, a 10.2% delta that represents the largest performance gap between the two. This is a substantial margin for integrated graphics versus a discrete part, suggesting Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture handles OpenCL workloads far more efficiently. In Geekbench Vulkan, Intel again prevails with 5628 versus 5223, a 7.8% difference. While the Vulkan gap is narrower, it still confirms Intel's superiority across both tested APIs. The average benchmark scores reinforce this trend: Intel's 5370 average is 8.9% higher than AMD's 4931. Notably, Intel's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (avg 5358, delta 0.2%) and NVIDIA GeForce 840M (avg 5322, delta 0.9%), placing it in competitive company. AMD's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (avg 4929, delta 0%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (avg 4893, delta 0.8%), showing the R7 M360 sits at a lower performance tier. The data leaves no ambiguity: Intel wins both head-to-head tests, and the AMD part's higher pixel rate and ROP count do not translate to compute or graphics benchmark victories.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses a 14 nm+++ process, while AMD's R7 M360 uses 28 nm. Intel's chip is Comet Lake GT2 with Generation 9.5 architecture, whereas AMD uses Meso with GCN 3.0. The transistor count differs significantly: AMD has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while Intel's transistor count and die size are not listed. Clock speeds favor AMD: base 1100 MHz and boost 1125 MHz versus Intel's 350 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Memory is a major split: Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while AMD has 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. Shading units are 192 for Intel and 384 for AMD, but ROPs are 3 for Intel and 8 for AMD. Pixel rate is 3.600 GPixel/s for Intel versus 9.000 GPixel/s for AMD, while texture rates are similar at 28.80 GTexel/s and 27.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 460.8 GFLOPS for Intel versus 864.0 GFLOPS for AMD, but FP16 is 921.6 GFLOPS for Intel versus 864.0 GFLOPS for AMD. The TDP for Intel is 15 W, while AMD's TDP is not listed. Intel uses a Ring Bus interface, while AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8. DirectX support is 12_1 for Intel versus 12_0 for AMD; Vulkan is 1.3 for Intel versus 1.2.170 for AMD. Release dates differ by five years: Intel launched May 2020, AMD launched May 2015. Both are end-of-life, with AMD listing Solar System as predecessor and Polaris Mobile as successor, while Intel lists no predecessor or successor.