AMD Radeon R8 M445DX vs Intel HD Graphics 630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single head-to-head comparison between these two integrated graphics parts, and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX takes a decisive victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD part scores 4727 points, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587 points. This gives the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX a 31.8% lead over its Intel rival. That is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload, indicating that AMD's solution delivers significantly higher raw throughput when the GPU is tasked with general-purpose calculations.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 does have additional benchmark entries in the database, with scores from Metal and Vulkan tests, but those do not have corresponding AMD results, so they cannot be used for a direct comparison. The only apples-to-apples measurement available is the OpenCL run, and the result is unambiguous: AMD wins the sole head-to-head matchup.

Looking at the broader context, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile. This gap, while modest in percentile terms, aligns with the 31.8% delta observed in the OpenCL benchmark. The AMD part's average benchmark score is 4727, while Intel's average across all its recorded tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan) is 4075. Even when the Intel part's higher-scoring Metal result (5099) and Vulkan result (3540) are included, its overall average still trails the AMD part by approximately 16%. The OpenCL score, however, is the most direct comparison, and there AMD holds a clear edge.

For rival context, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX's nearest neighbors in the database include the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (average score 4752, delta of -0.5% relative to the M445DX) and the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (average score 4684, delta of 0.9%). The Intel HD Graphics 630, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (average score 4093, delta of -0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (average score 4033, delta of 1%). These rival placements confirm that the AMD part is operating in a slightly higher performance tier than the Intel part, even though both are at the lower end of the overall GPU spectrum.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two parts is stark, reflecting different design philosophies from AMD and Intel. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Meso chip, and belongs to the Gem System Hybrid (Rx M400) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 125 mm² and a transistor count of 1,550 million. This yields a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Intel HD Graphics 630, on the other hand, uses the Generation 9.5 architecture with the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, belonging to the HD Graphics (Kaby Lake) generation. It is built on Intel's 14 nm++ process, though the database does not record its die size or transistor count.

The compute resources differ significantly. The AMD part fields 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 raster operation units. The AMD part's higher shading unit count (320 vs. 192) is a key reason for its OpenCL advantage, while Intel's higher TMU count (24 vs. 20) suggests a slightly different balance toward texture work. The ROP disparity is notable: 8 vs. 3, which heavily favors AMD in pixel-heavy workloads, though the head-to-head data does not include a dedicated pixel rate test.

Clock speeds tell another part of the story. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX runs at a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 1021 MHz. The Intel HD Graphics 630 runs at a much lower base clock of 350 MHz but boosts to 1000 MHz, nearly matching AMD's boost. This means AMD sustains a higher floor, while Intel relies on boosting to approach similar peak frequencies. The resulting throughput figures reflect this: AMD achieves 653.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while Intel achieves 384.0 GFLOPS. AMD's FP32 output is 70% higher than Intel's. Intel does have an advantage in FP16, where it delivers 768.0 GFLOPS (at a 2:1 ratio), while AMD delivers 653.4 GFLOPS (at a 1:1 ratio), but this does not show up in the recorded head-to-head benchmark.

Memory is system-shared for both parts, with bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with no dedicated video memory. The Intel part has a recorded TDP of 15 W, while the AMD part's TDP is not listed. The Intel part connects via Ring Bus, while the AMD part uses an IGP interface. Both support DirectX 12, though Intel's implementation is at feature level 12_1 while AMD's is at 12_0. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support differs: Intel supports version 1.3, while AMD supports version 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX scores 4727 points, defeating the Intel HD Graphics 630, which scores 3587 points. This gives AMD a 31.8% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX has an average benchmark score of 4727, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 averages 4075 across its recorded tests. This puts AMD roughly 16% ahead on average.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX has 320 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 has 192 shading units. AMD's count is 66.7% higher.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX boosts to 1021 MHz, slightly ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630's 1000 MHz boost. The base clocks differ more substantially, with AMD at 780 MHz versus Intel at 350 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX has a pixel rate of 8.168 GPixel/s, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 has a pixel rate of 3.000 GPixel/s. AMD is roughly 2.7 times higher.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX for compute workloads, as evidenced by its 31.8% lead in the OpenCL benchmark. Its higher shading unit count, superior pixel rate, and significantly higher FP32 throughput (653.4 GFLOPS vs. 384.0 GFLOPS) all reinforce this conclusion. The AMD part also holds a higher percentile ranking (27th vs. 24th) among all GPUs in the database.

However, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is not without its merits. It has a higher texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s vs. 20.42 GTexel/s), which could benefit texture-heavy tasks, and it delivers more FP16 performance (768.0 GFLOPS vs. 653.4 GFLOPS). Its lower TDP of 15 W (AMD's is unrecorded) suggests it may fit into more power-constrained designs, though the database does not provide a direct power comparison. Intel also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.3 vs. 1.2.170).

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX is the better choice. For those who may benefit from Intel's higher texture rate, FP16 capabilities, or newer API support, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has specific strengths. Both parts are end-of-life products, so the decision rests entirely on which workload profile matters more.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX and the Intel HD Graphics 630:

• Manufacturer: AMD vs. Intel
• Chip: Meso vs. Kaby Lake GT2
• Architecture: GCN 3.0 vs. Generation 9.5
• Generation: Gem System Hybrid (Rx M400) vs. HD Graphics (Kaby Lake)
• Process Node: 28 nm vs. 14 nm++
• Foundry: TSMC vs. Intel
• Transistors: 1,550 million vs. not recorded
• Die Size: 125 mm² vs. not recorded
• Transistor Density: 12.4M / mm² vs. not recorded
• Base Clock: 780 MHz vs. 350 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1021 MHz vs. 1000 MHz
• Shading Units: 320 vs. 192
• TMUs: 20 vs. 24
• ROPs: 8 vs. 3
• Pixel Rate: 8.168 GPixel/s vs. 3.000 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.42 GTexel/s vs. 24.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 653.4 GFLOPS vs. 384.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) vs. 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: not recorded vs. 15 W
• Bus Interface: IGP vs. Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs. Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs. 1.3
• Release Date: 2016-05-14 vs. 2016-08-29
• OpenCL Benchmark Score: 4727 vs. 3587
• Average Benchmark Score: 4727 vs. 4075
• Percentile vs. All GPUs: 27 vs. 24

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX wins in the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 31.8% advantage. It also holds decisive leads in shading units (320 vs. 192), pixel rate (8.168 GPixel/s vs. 3.000 GPixel/s), and FP32 throughput (653.4 GFLOPS vs. 384.0 GFLOPS). The AMD part's higher base clock (780 MHz vs. 350 MHz) means it maintains higher sustained performance without relying on boost states. For any workload that leans on compute shaders, pixel processing, or general GPGPU tasks, the AMD part is the stronger option.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in several specific areas, even though it loses the overall benchmark. Its texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s exceeds AMD's 20.42 GTexel/s, indicating better performance in texture-heavy rendering scenarios. Its FP16 output of 768.0 GFLOPS surpasses AMD's 653.4 GFLOPS, which could matter for applications that utilize half-precision math. The Intel part also supports newer API versions, with DirectX 12 (12_1) over AMD's 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3 over AMD's 1.2.170. Additionally, the Intel part has a recorded TDP of 15 W, suggesting lower power draw, though AMD's TDP is unrecorded so no direct comparison can be made.

In summary, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX is the compute champion, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 offers advantages in texture throughput, half-precision performance, and API modernity. The recorded data shows AMD winning the definitive benchmark, but the choice between these two ultimately depends on which specific capabilities matter more for the target application.