AMD Radeon RX 9060 vs Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the average benchmark score of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 compare to that of the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 records an average benchmark score of 16014, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics records 14315. The RX 9060 sits at the 59th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Intel part sits at the 56th percentile.

Q: In the only shared benchmark test, what is the performance gap?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 scores 88183 versus 14315 for the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics. The recorded data shows a 516% delta in favor of the AMD part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 boosts to 2990 MHz, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics boosts to 1650 MHz. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 1700 MHz versus 300 MHz.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is listed as Active production, with a release date of August 2025. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is End-of-life and was released in October 2020.

Q: How do the nearest rivals for each card compare in average score?

A: The RX 9060's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, with an average score of 16129, which is 0.7% higher. The Iris Xe MAX's closest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 11, scoring 14352, which is 0.3% higher.

Q: What is the difference in pixel and texture rates?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 achieves a pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics achieves 39.60 GPixel/s and 79.20 GTexel/s respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 is built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, using the Navi 44 chip, and is part of the Radeon RX 9000 series. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 199 mm² and a transistor count of 29,700 million. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics uses Generation 12.1 architecture with the DG1 chip, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 95 mm² and no transistor count listed.

The AMD part is a discrete, dual-slot graphics card with a 128-bit GDDR6 memory interface, delivering 8 GB of memory and 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 128-bit LPDDR4X interface, offering 4 GB of memory and 68.26 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock rates also differ substantially, with the RX 9060 running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective) for the Intel.

Shader resources are heavily skewed toward the AMD part. The RX 9060 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 28 ray tracing cores. The Iris Xe MAX has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The AMD GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it lacks the full 12_2 feature set.

The bus interfaces differ as well: the RX 9060 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Iris Xe MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Power requirements reflect the performance gap, with the AMD part rated at 132 W TDP and suggesting a 300 W PSU, while the Intel part is rated at 25 W and suggests a 200 W PSU. The RX 9060 has a 1x 8-pin power connector and dual-slot width, whereas the Intel part lists no power connectors and is an IGP. The RX 9060 also offers display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a), while the Iris Xe MAX has no outputs listed. The transistor density for the AMD chip is 149.2M per mm², while no density is recorded for the Intel chip.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 dominates in every measurable category where both have records. Its average benchmark score of 16014 is 11.9% higher than the Intel's 14315. In the only direct head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 88183 versus 14315, a 516% advantage. The RX 9060 also places higher in the overall percentile ranking at 59 versus 56.

For gaming and compute workloads, the RX 9060 is the obvious choice. It offers discrete graphics performance with ray tracing support, a much higher FP32 throughput (21.43 TFLOPS versus 2.534 TFLOPS), and significantly more memory bandwidth. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics, being an integrated solution with end-of-life status, is suitable for basic graphics tasks but cannot compete on raw performance. Its advantages are limited to lower power consumption (25 W versus 132 W) and a smaller die size (95 mm² versus 199 mm²). The data suggests that anyone seeking serious graphics performance should pick the RX 9060, while the Iris Xe MAX is only relevant for low-power or legacy integrated scenarios.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show differences in nearly every core attribute. Process node: 4 nm for AMD, 10 nm for Intel. Die size: 199 mm² versus 95 mm². Transistors: 29,700 million for AMD, none recorded for Intel. Base clock: 1700 MHz versus 300 MHz. Boost clock: 2990 MHz versus 1650 MHz. Game clock: 2400 MHz for AMD, none for Intel. Memory clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective).

Memory size: 8 GB versus 4 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus LPDDR4X. Bus width is the same at 128 bit, but bandwidth differs at 288.0 GB/s versus 68.26 GB/s. Shading units: 1792 versus 768. TMUs: 112 versus 48. ROPs: 64 versus 24. Ray tracing cores: 28 versus none. Pixel rate: 191.4 GPixel/s versus 39.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 334.9 GTexel/s versus 79.20 GTexel/s. FP32: 21.43 TFLOPS versus 2.534 TFLOPS. FP16: 21.43 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 5.069 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 132 W versus 25 W. Slot width: Dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin for AMD, none for Intel. Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 200 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a for AMD, none for Intel. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Production status: Active versus End-of-life. Release date: August 2025 versus October 2020. Successor: none for AMD, Alchemist for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 posts a score of 88183, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics posts 14315. The delta is 516% in favor of the AMD part. This is a massive gap, reflecting the differences in compute units, clock speeds, and memory bandwidth.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the RX 9060, it shows strength across multiple tests. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 3322. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 39476. Passmark results show a G3D score of 17631, a GPU compute score of 9919, and a G2D score of 1002. DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores are 280, 104, 182, and 44 respectively. The Intel part has no records for these other tests, so no further direct comparisons are possible.

The nearest rival data provides context for the RX 9060's standing. Its average score of 16014 is only 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16129). It is 1% above the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15852). It is 2.1% above the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15679). For the Intel Iris Xe MAX, its average of 14315 is 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14352) and 0.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14373). It is 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14277) and 0.5% below the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385). This places the Intel part in a much lower performance tier, competing with older integrated and mid-range parts, while the AMD part competes with upper-mid-range discrete GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9060 wins on every front where data exists. It is the only one of the two with a DirectX 12_2 feature level, which is important for modern game titles that require ray tracing or mesh shaders. The 28 ray tracing cores give it dedicated hardware for ray-traced effects, while the Intel part has none. The RX 9060's 8 GB of GDDR6 memory at 288.0 GB/s bandwidth is far better suited for high-resolution textures and compute workloads compared to the 4 GB LPDDR4X at 68.26 GB/s on the Intel.

The AMD part also excels in raw throughput metrics. Its FP32 rate of 21.43 TFLOPS is roughly 8.5 times higher than the Intel's 2.534 TFLOPS. The pixel rate of 191.4 GPixel/s is nearly 5 times the Intel's 39.60 GPixel/s. The texture rate of 334.9 GTexel/s is over 4 times the Intel's 79.20 GTexel/s. These translate directly to better frame rates in games and faster processing in GPGPU applications.

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics does have a niche. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for ultra-low-power systems, and its IGP form factor means it requires no additional power connectors or expansion slot beyond what a motherboard provides. It is also a smaller die at 95 mm², which could be relevant for compact designs. However, with end-of-life status and no display outputs, its practical applications are limited to specific embedded or legacy configurations. The data indicates that the RX 9060 is the superior choice for any performance-oriented task, while the Iris Xe MAX is only relevant when power draw is the absolute priority and performance requirements are minimal.