AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

# Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 and AMD Radeon R7 M365X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they approach the task from fundamentally different directions. The Iris Pro P6300 is an integrated part of Intel's Broadwell GT3e package, built on a 14 nm process, while the R7 M365X is a discrete AMD part using GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process. In the single available head-to-head benchmark — Geekbench OpenCL — the AMD part scores 5939 against Intel's 5712, a delta of -3.8% from the perspective of the Intel part, meaning the AMD GPU leads by 3.8%. The Intel part sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 32nd percentile, indicating both are near the lower-middle of the performance distribution, though the AMD part's average score across all its benchmarks is 5416 due to a weaker Vulkan result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5939, compared to the Intel Iris Pro P6300's 5712. This represents a 3.8% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in overall performance percentiles?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X sits at the 32nd percentile. Despite the AMD part winning the head-to-head OpenCL test, its average benchmark score of 5416 is dragged down by a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4893, which is notably lower than its OpenCL score.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU according to the data?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, which scores 5721 (a -0.1% delta), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5731 (-0.3%) and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (+0.4%). For the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 610M at 5444 (-0.5%), then the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370 (+0.9%).

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and a base clock of 300 MHz and boost clock of 800 MHz. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has dedicated memory: 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s and memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units and ROPs?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has 48 TMUs but only 6 ROPs, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. Both have the same number of shading units at 384.

Q: What are the API support differences between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_1). However, the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0, while the AMD part supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, giving the AMD GPU more recent API versions.

The Verdict

The data suggests that the AMD Radeon R7 M365X is the stronger performer in raw compute tasks, as evidenced by its OpenCL score of 5939 versus 5712 for the Intel Iris Pro P6300. However, the AMD part's Vulkan score of 4893 reveals a significant weakness in that API — a score that is 17.6% lower than its own OpenCL result. This inconsistency means that users prioritizing Vulkan-based workloads might find the Intel part more predictable, despite its lower peak performance.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300, being an integrated GPU on a 14 nm process, offers the advantage of zero additional power connectors and a 15 W TDP, making it suitable for systems where power draw is a primary concern. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X, with no listed TDP, is a discrete part that requires PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, suggesting it is a separate component that adds to system complexity. For users with existing Broadwell systems seeking a capable integrated solution, the Intel part is the obvious choice. For those who need dedicated GDDR5 memory with higher bandwidth (64.00 GB/s) and can accept the variability in API performance, the AMD part is the better pick based on the OpenCL lead. Neither GPU is a standout in its percentile class — 33rd and 32nd respectively — so buyers should temper expectations regarding modern gaming or compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. Here, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X posts a score of 5939, while the Intel Iris Pro P6300 scores 5712. The delta of -3.8% (expressed relative to the Intel part) means the AMD GPU is ahead by roughly 227 points. This is a modest but real advantage, placing the AMD part just above the Intel part in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the Intel Iris Pro P6300's score of 5712 places it between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721, -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, +0.4%). This tight clustering suggests that the Intel part is competitive with mid-range discrete GPUs from several generations prior. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X's OpenCL score of 5939, however, is not directly compared to its nearest rivals in the same test, but its average score of 5416 is lower than all four of its nearest rivals — the AMD Radeon 610M (5444), Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370), NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467), and AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358). This indicates that while the AMD part wins the single head-to-head test, its overall benchmark profile is dragged down by the Vulkan result of 4893, which is substantially lower than its OpenCL performance.

The Intel part has no Vulkan benchmark listed, so its average benchmark score of 5712 is identical to its OpenCL score. This suggests that for Vulkan workloads, the Intel part may be more consistent, though no direct data supports that claim. The AMD part's wins tally is 1 (the OpenCL test), while the Intel part has 0 wins. This head-to-head record, combined with the percentile rankings, paints a picture of two GPUs that are closely matched on paper but diverge in API-specific performance.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is memory. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host system's RAM. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X, by contrast, has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a fixed bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. This gives the AMD part a deterministic memory performance profile that is not subject to system variability.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz, while the AMD part has no listed base or boost clocks — only its memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) is provided. The lack of core clock data for the AMD part makes direct frequency comparisons impossible, but the memory clock difference is clear.

The process nodes are different: Intel uses 14 nm, while AMD uses 28 nm. The AMD part has a known transistor count of 950 million on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size. The bus interface also differs: the Intel part uses a Ring Bus (typical for integrated graphics), while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, confirming its status as a discrete component.

Other differences include the TDP (Intel: 15 W, AMD: not listed), slot width (Intel: IGP, AMD: not listed), and display outputs (Intel: motherboard dependent, AMD: not listed). The shading units are identical at 384, but the Intel part has 48 TMUs versus 24 for the AMD part, while the AMD part has 8 ROPs versus 6 for the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is built on Broadwell GT3e, which is part of Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, specifically the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) generation. It uses a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is built on the Litho chip, using GCN 1.0 architecture from the Gem System (R7 M300) generation. It uses a 28 nm process from TSMC.

These architectural choices have direct implications. The Intel part's 14 nm process is more advanced than AMD's 28 nm, which typically allows for lower power consumption and higher transistor density — though the Intel part's transistor density is not listed, while AMD's is 12.3M / mm². The Intel part's 48 TMUs, despite having only 6 ROPs, gives it a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s, which is nearly double the AMD part's texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s from its 24 TMUs. However, the AMD part's pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s exceeds the Intel part's 4.800 GPixel/s, due to the AMD part having 8 ROPs versus 6.

The FP32 performance is close: the Intel part delivers 614.4 GFLOPS, while the AMD part delivers 633.6 GFLOPS — a 3.1% advantage for AMD that aligns with the OpenCL benchmark lead. Neither part lists FP16 performance. The AMD part's predecessor is "Solar System" and successor is "Polaris Mobile," while the Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor. The AMD part also has a later release date (May 2015) compared to the Intel part (September 2014), which may explain its slightly higher FP32 throughput despite the older process node.

API support differs in version numbers only: both support DirectX 12 (11_1), but the AMD part supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. This gives the AMD part a modern API advantage, though its Vulkan benchmark score of 4893 suggests that theoretical support does not always translate to performance.