AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs Intel HD Graphics 630 Comparison

AMD’s Vega 3 IGP and Intel’s HD Graphics 630 are both end-of-life integrated solutions aimed at basic computing, but their benchmark profiles diverge sharply depending on the API. The data shows a clear split: Intel wins the Metal test decisively, while AMD sweeps both OpenCL and Vulkan by double-digit margins. This is not a close, interchangeable matchup—each chip has a distinct software ecosystem advantage that dictates its practical use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three Geekbench tests paint a polarized picture. In geekbench_metal, Intel’s HD Graphics 630 scores 5099 against AMD’s 4880, a 4.3% advantage. That is the only test Intel wins, but it wins it with enough margin to matter for macOS-oriented workloads. Metal is Apple’s low-level graphics API, and a 219-point lead suggests Intel’s driver stack or hardware design is better tuned for that specific path.

AMD strikes back hard in the other two tests. In geekbench_opencl, the Vega 3 posts 3963 versus Intel’s 3587, a 10.5% lead. OpenCL is the cross-platform compute standard, and AMD’s GCN architecture has historically been stronger here. The gap widens further in geekbench_vulkan: AMD scores 3961 against Intel’s 3540, an 11.9% margin. Vulkan is the modern gaming and high-performance compute API, and that 421-point difference is the single largest delta in the entire comparison.

Aggregating the three tests, AMD’s average benchmark score is 4268, while Intel’s is 4075. That puts AMD 4.7% ahead overall, but the distribution is lopsided—Intel’s Metal win is narrow, while AMD’s OpenCL and Vulkan wins are substantial. Looking at percentile rankings, AMD sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, and Intel at the 24th. Both are firmly in the entry-level tier, but AMD’s percentile is marginally higher despite losing one test.

Rival comparisons reinforce the context. AMD’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, which scores 4282—just 0.3% above the Vega 3. Intel’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093, only 0.4% higher than the HD 630. These deltas are negligible, meaning both integrated chips sit at the very bottom of the discrete GPU ladder, trading blows with decade-old mobile parts.

Architecture Differences

The underlying designs could not be more different. AMD’s Vega 3 uses the Picasso chip on a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries, built on the GCN 5.0 architecture. Intel’s HD 630 uses the Kaby Lake GT2 chip on a 14 nm++ process from Intel’s own fabs, based on Generation 9.5 architecture. The node advantage goes to AMD—12 nm is denser than 14 nm++—but Intel compensates with a more mature process tweak.

Transistor counts and die size are only available for AMD. The Picasso die packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.5 million transistors per mm². Intel does not disclose comparable figures for the Kaby Lake GT2, so a direct density comparison is impossible from the data.

Shading units are identical at 192 for both, but the rest of the pipeline diverges. AMD has 12 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 4 render output units (ROPs), while Intel has 24 TMUs and 3 ROPs. That means Intel has double the texture throughput potential, while AMD has one more ROP. The practical effect shows in pixel and texture rates: AMD’s pixel rate is 4.400 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 3.000 GPixel/s—a 46.7% advantage for AMD. Conversely, Intel’s texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 13.20 GTexel/s, an 81.8% lead for Intel. These are theoretical peak rates, but they explain why AMD wins compute-heavy tests while Intel holds its own in rasterization-oriented workloads.

Clock speeds are also notable. AMD’s base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz; Intel’s base is 350 MHz with a boost of 1000 MHz. Intel starts higher but peaks lower, which means AMD’s boost headroom is larger. Floating-point performance reflects this: AMD delivers 422.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 844.8 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while Intel manages 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1). AMD is roughly 10% ahead in raw compute, which aligns with its OpenCL and Vulkan wins.

Both chips share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Both have a TDP of 15 W, both are integrated (IGP) parts, and both output to Motherboard Dependent displays. Memory is System Shared for both, with bandwidth labeled System Dependent—meaning performance scales with the host system’s RAM speed, which is not specified in the data.

Where Each One Wins

AMD’s Radeon Vega 3 is the clear winner for compute-heavy and modern cross-platform workloads. Its 10.5% OpenCL lead and 11.9% Vulkan lead are not marginal—they indicate a genuine architectural advantage in parallel compute tasks. If you are running GPU-accelerated applications that leverage OpenCL (e.g., certain video encoders, physics simulations) or Vulkan (modern game engines, compute shaders), the Vega 3 is the better choice. The 192 shading units paired with faster FP32 throughput (422.4 GFLOPS) give it a tangible edge in raw number crunching.

Intel’s HD Graphics 630 wins specifically in Metal-based environments. The 4.3% Metal lead (5099 vs 4880) suggests that macOS or iOS-oriented software that relies on Metal will perform better on the Intel part. This is a narrow win, but it is consistent—the HD 630’s higher texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s) could also favor certain fill-rate-bound 2D workloads or older DirectX 11 titles that are less compute-intensive. For basic desktop compositing, video playback, and light 2D gaming, the two are functionally interchangeable, but Intel’s higher base clock (350 MHz) might give it a slight edge in bursty, low-load scenarios.

The use-case split is stark: AMD for compute, Intel for Metal-specific rendering. There is no scenario where both excel simultaneously. In traditional gaming benchmarks (which are not in the data), the Vulkan advantage would likely translate to better frame rates in Vulkan-based titles, but that is an inference from the compute results, not a measured fact.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the better all-around integrated GPU for general-purpose compute and modern API workloads. It wins 2 of 3 head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (4268 vs 4075), and a higher percentile rank (25th vs 24th). The 11.9% Vulkan lead is the most decisive metric in the entire comparison, and for any user running Vulkan-based games or compute applications, that is the stat that matters.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 is only preferable in one specific scenario: if your software stack is heavily dependent on Apple’s Metal API. The 4.3% Metal win is real, but it is narrow and isolated. For everything else, AMD’s 10.5% OpenCL and 11.9% Vulkan advantages are larger and more broadly applicable. If you are building a low-power system with a 15 W TDP budget and need an IGP that can handle compute tasks, the Vega 3 is the safe pick. If you are locked into a Metal-centric workflow, the HD 630 has a measurable, though small, edge.

Neither chip is a gaming powerhouse—both sit in the bottom quartile of all GPUs—but for integrated graphics, AMD’s compute density (4,940 million transistors on 12 nm) gives it a structural advantage that shows up in every non-Metal benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: AMD’s Radeon Vega 3 wins 2 out of 3 tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), while Intel’s HD Graphics 630 wins 1 test (Metal).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: In geekbench_vulkan, AMD scores 3961 against Intel’s 3540, an 11.9% delta. This is the single biggest margin in any test.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The performance differs per API, but the feature set is identical.

Q: How do their texture and pixel rates compare?

A: AMD has a pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 3.000 GPixel/s. Intel has a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 13.20 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: AMD’s Vega 3 boosts to 1100 MHz, while Intel’s HD 630 boosts to 1000 MHz. AMD’s base clock is lower at 300 MHz versus Intel’s 350 MHz.

Q: Are both chips the same power draw?

A: Yes, both are rated at 15 W TDP and are integrated (IGP) parts with no power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | Intel HD Graphics 630 |

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

| Chip | Picasso | Kaby Lake GT2 |

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Generation 9.5 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm++ |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 4,940 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| TMUs | 12 | 24 |

| ROPs | 4 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.400 GPixel/s | 3.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.20 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 422.4 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1) | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| Bus Interface | IGP | Ring Bus |

| Release Date | 2019-11-19 | 2016-08-29 |

| Predecessor | GCN 3.0 IGP | Not specified |

| Successor | Vega II IGP | Not specified |