AMD Radeon R7 M440 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 and Intel UHD Graphics P630 are both end-of-life integrated-class graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and performance tiers. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the AMD part winning both head-to-head tests, yet the margin is narrow and the underlying specifications tell a more nuanced story about where each chip excels and where it falls short.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Radeon R7 M440 claims victory in both recorded benchmark disciplines, though the margins are slim. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 5214 against the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5111, a 2% advantage. The Vulkan test shows a slightly larger gap: the R7 M440 scores 5751 versus the P630’s 5628, translating to a 2.2% lead for AMD. These are not transformative wins — they place the two GPUs in the same competitive bracket, but the consistency of AMD’s advantage across both APIs is notable.

Context from the nearestRivals data reinforces this picture. The R7 M440’s average benchmark score of 5483 sits just 0.3% above the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) and 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). Its delta against the AMD Radeon 610M (5444) is +0.7%, and against the GeForce MX130 (5508) it is -0.5%. The Intel part, meanwhile, averages 5370, which is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358) and 0.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322). The P630’s nearest rival spread shows it trading blows with older discrete mobile GPUs, whereas the R7 M440 hovers near more recent entries like the MX130.

What the head-to-head numbers do not show is a decisive knockout. A 2% OpenCL lead and a 2.2% Vulkan lead are within the noise of driver optimizations and thermal variance. However, the fact that AMD wins both tests, regardless of margin, suggests its GCN 3.0 architecture handles these workloads with slightly better efficiency per clock. The Intel part’s Vulkan score of 5628 is its stronger result relative to its OpenCL score, indicating that Generation 9.5 scales reasonably well with modern APIs, but not enough to close the gap.

Architecture Differences

The foundational split between these two GPUs is their process technology and compute layout. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is built on a 28 nm TSMC node, packing 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses Intel’s 14 nm+++ process, but the FACT PACK provides no transistor count, die size, or density for this chip — a telling omission that reflects its integrated nature, sharing silicon with the CPU.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The R7 M440 fields 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The P630 counters with 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This configuration is unusual: Intel dedicates more texture units but far fewer ROPs, which explains its pixel rate of 3.600 GPixel/s against AMD’s 7.128 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors Intel, however, with 28.80 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 17.82 GTexel/s. These are not interchangeable metrics — the AMD chip is built for fill-rate-bound scenes, while the Intel part can process more texture work per clock.

FP32 compute tells a similar story. The R7 M440 delivers 570.2 GFLOPS, while the P630 manages 460.8 GFLOPS. But the Intel part has a distinct advantage in FP16: it outputs 921.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, whereas the AMD chip is locked at 570.2 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. For workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, the Intel GPU is effectively 61.7% faster, even though it loses in FP32. Memory bandwidth is another clear separator: the R7 M440 has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s. The P630 relies on system shared memory with bandwidth listed as “System Dependent,” meaning its performance varies with the host platform’s RAM configuration.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part has explicit base and boost clocks of 350 MHz and 1200 MHz, respectively. The AMD chip lists no base or boost clock in the FACT PACK, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The absence of core clock data for AMD suggests its performance is more dependent on the memory subsystem, which is already constrained by the 64-bit bus.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has an average benchmark score of 5483, which is 2.1% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5370.

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

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the R7 M440 scores 5751 versus the P630’s 5628, giving AMD a 2.2% lead. This is AMD’s largest winning margin in the head-to-head tests.

Q: Does the Intel part have any compute advantage over AMD?

A: Yes, in FP16 throughput. The P630 outputs 921.6 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the R7 M440 is capped at 570.2 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This gives Intel a significant edge for half-precision workloads.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The R7 M440 has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The P630 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as “System Dependent.”

Q: Which GPU has better pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has a pixel rate of 7.128 GPixel/s, nearly double the Intel P630’s 3.600 GPixel/s, due to the AMD chip’s 8 ROPs versus Intel’s 3 ROPs.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The AMD R7 M440 was released in 2016, while the Intel P630 launched in 2020.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M440 | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Generation 9.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+++ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | Not specified |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.128 GPixel/s | 3.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.82 GTexel/s | 28.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 570.2 GFLOPS | 460.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1) | 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | Not specified | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2020-05-12 |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow overall winner: the AMD Radeon R7 M440. It leads in both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a 2.1% higher average score, and dominates in pixel rate and FP32 throughput. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads that are not FP16-heavy, the AMD part is the safer choice based purely on benchmark outcomes.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is not without merit. Its FP16 output at 921.6 GFLOPS is substantially higher, and its texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s exceeds AMD’s 17.82 GTexel/s. The 14 nm+++ process node and support for Vulkan 1.3 also give it a more modern feature set, even if raw scores lag. The P630’s 15 W TDP, while not directly comparable to the unspecified TDP of the R7 M440, suggests it may fit into tighter thermal envelopes.

The choice hinges on workload. For general compute and rasterization, the R7 M440’s higher FP32 and pixel rate make it the stronger candidate. For applications that exploit FP16 or heavily rely on texture sampling, the Intel part offers specific advantages. The R7 M440’s dedicated 4 GB of memory is a concrete benefit for graphics workloads, whereas the P630’s shared memory is a variable that depends entirely on the host system. Given that the AMD chip wins both recorded benchmarks and holds a higher percentile rank (32nd versus 31st), the data favors AMD for most users. The Intel part is only preferable in niche scenarios where its FP16 throughput or texture rate directly translates to performance gains.