AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs Intel UHD Graphics 750 Comparison

The database pits two very different integrated-era graphics solutions against each other: AMD's discrete mobile part from the GCN era and Intel's integrated graphics embedded in Rocket Lake desktop CPUs. On the single head-to-head benchmark recorded, the AMD Radeon R9 M265X takes a decisive win, scoring 8851 in Geekbench OpenCL against 6743 for the Intel UHD Graphics 750, a 31.3 percent advantage. This comparison walks through that data, the architectural gaps behind it, and where each part still makes sense.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one head-to-head test appears in the recorded data, but it is unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R9 M265X scores 8851 while the UHD Graphics 750 manages 6743, giving AMD the win by 31.3 percent. That is not a narrow margin; it is a full performance class of separation in compute workloads.

Context from the wider database reinforces the gap. The R9 M265X sits at the 44th percentile versus all GPUs, while the UHD Graphics 750 lands at the 40th. Their average benchmark scores reflect the same ordering: 8851 for AMD versus 7441 for Intel. The overall win count in the recorded head-to-head set is 1-0 in AMD's favor.

The rival clusters each GPU occupies tell a similar story. The R9 M265X trades blows with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863 average, just 0.1 percent apart), the AMD Radeon 550X (8918, a 0.8 percent gap), and sits 1.2 percent ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743). The UHD Graphics 750 clusters near the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, 0.1 percent apart), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, 0.2 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, 0.4 percent), while trailing the Intel Arc A310 (7550) by 1.4 percent.

One nuance deserves attention. The UHD Graphics 750 has a second recorded score, 8138 in Geekbench Vulkan, which narrows the distance to AMD's OpenCL result considerably. The database contains no Vulkan result for the R9 M265X, so cross-API conclusions should be treated cautiously, but the Vulkan figure suggests the Intel iGPU performs relatively better there than in OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

These two parts come from different design philosophies separated by a long stretch of time. The R9 M265X is a discrete mobile GPU built on the Venus chip, GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, a density of 12.2M per mm², and connects over PCIe 3.0 x16.

The UHD Graphics 750 is an integrated graphics processor built into the Rocket Lake chip, using Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture on a 14 nm+++ process from Intel's own foundries. It rides a Ring Bus interface, carries a 15 W TDP, and occupies an IGP slot, meaning no board footprint at all. Transistor count, die size, and density are not recorded for the Intel part since it shares silicon with the CPU.

Resource counts favor AMD on raw rendering hardware. The R9 M265X fields 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, against 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the UHD Graphics 750. Compute follows the same pattern: 800.0 GFLOPS FP32 for AMD versus 665.6 GFLOPS FP32 for Intel. Intel, however, records an FP16 figure of 1,331.2 GFLOPS at a 2:1 rate, while no FP16 value exists for the AMD part.

Clocking strategies diverge sharply. The R9 M265X runs a narrow range from a 575 MHz base to a 625 MHz boost. The UHD Graphics 750 spans from a 300 MHz base to a 1300 MHz boost, a much wider swing that lets it reach high peak rates in short bursts.

Memory is the sharpest contrast. The AMD part carries its own 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering a fixed 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel iGPU uses system shared memory for size, type, bus width, and bandwidth, all of which scale with the host platform rather than the GPU itself. That makes the Intel part's memory performance platform dependent, while the AMD part is deterministic.

Throughput rates split the difference. Intel edges pixel fill at 10.40 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s for AMD, courtesy of its high boost clock. AMD wins texture fill at 25.00 GTexel/s against 20.80 GTexel/s, consistent with its 40 TMUs versus 16.

Software support favors the newer Intel silicon. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the UHD Graphics 750 carries the newer 12_1 feature level versus 11_1, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Neither part has RT cores or tensor cores.

Release timing matters for context. The R9 M265X launched on 2014-03-20 and is end-of-life, with a predecessor line labeled Solar System and a successor line labeled Polaris Mobile. The UHD Graphics 750 launched on 2021-03-29 and is also end-of-life, with no recorded predecessor or successor. Display outputs for the AMD part are unlisted, while the Intel part's outputs are motherboard dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X. It wins the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, 8851 to 6743, a 31.3 percent advantage, and holds a higher average benchmark score (8851 versus 7441) and percentile (44 versus 40).

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 win anything?

A: Yes, in one recorded metric: pixel fill rate. It delivers 10.40 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s for the AMD part. It also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8138, a test the AMD part has no recorded result in.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The R9 M265X has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The UHD Graphics 750 shares system memory, so its capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth all depend on the host platform.

Q: Which has more processing hardware?

A: The AMD part, by a wide margin: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. FP32 compute is 800.0 GFLOPS versus 665.6 GFLOPS.

Q: Which supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750. It supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, versus feature level 11_1 and Vulkan 1.2.170 on the AMD part. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are both still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The R9 M265X launched 2014-03-20; the UHD Graphics 750 launched 2021-03-29.

The Verdict

The data points one direction for performance. Anyone prioritizing GPU compute or rendering throughput should pick the R9 M265X: a 31.3 percent OpenCL win, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher FP32 compute, higher texture fill, and guaranteed dedicated bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. It sits in a tougher rival cluster too, matching the WX 5100 and beating the RTX 3050 A Mobile and GTX 460 v2 in its recorded comparison set.

The UHD Graphics 750 argues for itself on integration and efficiency grounds rather than raw speed. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it adds no board and no separate memory cost to a system, and its newer API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1) makes it more forward-compatible with modern software stacks. Its Vulkan score of 8138 also shows it is no slouch in that API. Buyers choosing between dedicated graphics performance and a zero-footprint integrated solution have a clear split: AMD for speed, Intel for integration.

Specification Differences

• Manufacturer: AMD (R9 M265X) versus Intel (UHD Graphics 750)
• Chip: Venus versus Rocket Lake
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Generation 12.1
• Generation: Gem System (R9 M200) versus HD Graphics (Rocket Lake)
• Process node: 28 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm+++ (Intel)
• Transistors: 1,500 million versus not recorded
• Die size: 123 mm² versus not recorded
• Transistor density: 12.2M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base clock: 575 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost clock: 625 MHz versus 1300 MHz
• Memory: 2 GB GDDR5, 128 bit, 64.00 GB/s, 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus system shared across all memory fields
• Shading units: 640 versus 256
• TMUs: 40 versus 16
• ROPs: 16 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 10.00 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 25.00 GTexel/s versus 20.80 GTexel/s
• FP32: 800.0 GFLOPS versus 665.6 GFLOPS
• FP16: not recorded versus 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: not recorded versus 15 W
• Slot width: not recorded versus IGP
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Display outputs: not recorded versus motherboard dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Release date: 2014-03-20 versus 2021-03-29
• Predecessor: Solar System versus none recorded
• Successor: Polaris Mobile versus none recorded
• Average benchmark score: 8851 versus 7441
• Percentile versus all GPUs: 44 versus 40

Where Each One Wins

The R9 M265X owns every compute and throughput category in the recorded data. OpenCL workloads favor it by 31.3 percent. Texture-heavy rendering favors it through 40 TMUs and 25.00 GTexel/s of fill. General shader work favors it through 640 shading units and 800.0 GFLOPS FP32. Workloads sensitive to memory consistency favor its fixed 64.00 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth, immune to whatever the host system provides. Its percentile placement and rival cluster confirm it as the stronger performer overall.

The UHD Graphics 750 wins where integration, efficiency, and modern API compliance matter. Its 10.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is the one throughput metric it takes outright, useful in pixel-bound scenarios during its high 1300 MHz boost bursts. Its Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 support suit it to newer software. Its 15 W IGP design suits compact systems where a discrete card is not an option, and its FP16 throughput of 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) gives it a recorded half-precision capability the AMD part lacks entirely. For lightweight gaming and display duties on a Rocket Lake platform, it is the practical choice; for raw GPU performance, the data clearly favors the AMD part.