AMD FirePro W4190M vs Intel HD Graphics 630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct comparison between these two mobile graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 points, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587 points. This represents a 25.6% advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload.

Looking at the broader context, the FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile. Both are positioned in the lower echelons of the performance spectrum, but the AMD solution maintains a clear edge in raw compute throughput.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling. The FirePro's 4505 score places it in close company with the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499, a 0.1% difference), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, 1.2% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, 1.4% ahead). For a mobile workstation part, matching desktop-oriented discrete GPUs within a few percentage points is notable. The Intel HD Graphics 630, by contrast, finds itself near the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, 0.4% behind) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151, 1.8% behind), but also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033, 1% ahead) and the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013, 1.5% ahead).

The Intel part does have additional benchmark entries in the database: a Geekbench Metal score of 5099 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3540. The Metal result is notably higher than its OpenCL score, indicating that the architecture performs differently depending on the API. However, the Vulkan result (3540) is nearly identical to the OpenCL score (3587), suggesting a consistent compute baseline outside of Apple's Metal framework. The FirePro W4190M has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores, so cross-API comparisons cannot be made from the available data.

When averaging all recorded benchmarks, the FirePro W4190M produces an average score of 4505, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 produces 4075. That is a 10.6% gap in favor of AMD when considering all available measurements, though the discrepancy in the number of benchmark entries (one for AMD, three for Intel) means the averages are not directly comparable in a strict statistical sense.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 25.6% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 630's score of 3587. The database records this as a win for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The Intel part records a Geekbench Metal score of 5099, which is higher than any score recorded for the AMD FirePro W4190M. However, the AMD part has no Metal entry, so this is not a head-to-head comparison but rather an observation about the Intel part's API-specific performance.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The FirePro W4190M is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (0.1% delta) and sits 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530. The Intel HD Graphics 630 sits within 1.8% of several rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1.8% ahead), the AMD FirePro M4150 (1.5% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (1% ahead).

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M ranks at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel HD Graphics 630 ranks at the 24th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has higher peak pixel throughput?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s, more than double the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3.000 GPixel/s. This reflects the AMD part's 8 ROPs versus Intel's 3 ROPs.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 support newer API versions?

A: Yes. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W4190M is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using TSMC's 28 nm process. The chip, codenamed Opal, packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a mature, power-focused design from 2015 that prioritizes compute throughput per transistor.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses Generation 9.5 architecture, specifically the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm++ process. The database does not list transistor count, die size, or transistor density for this part, so direct physical comparisons are not possible from the recorded data. The 14 nm++ process is a more advanced manufacturing node than 28 nm, which typically allows for better power efficiency, but the architectural priorities differ substantially.

The compute resources tell a clear story. The AMD part fields 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Intel part has exactly half the shading units at 192, but matches the TMU count at 24, and drops to just 3 ROPs. This configuration explains the measured pixel rate: AMD achieves 7.200 GPixel/s against Intel's 3.000 GPixel/s. The texture rates are much closer: 21.60 GTexel/s for AMD versus 24.00 GTexel/s for Intel, with Intel actually holding a slight advantage thanks to its higher boost clock.

Floating-point performance follows the shader count. The FirePro W4190M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the Intel part also records FP16 throughput of 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the AMD part does not list. This suggests the Intel architecture has dedicated half-precision paths, while the AMD part's GCN 1.0 design is optimized for FP32.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The AMD part has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, a relatively narrow range. The Intel part starts at 350 MHz and boosts to 1000 MHz, a much wider dynamic range that reflects its integrated nature and thermal constraints within a CPU package.

Specification Differences

The two parts diverge across nearly every major specification category.

Memory configuration is a fundamental difference. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory, with the database listing size, type, and bus width all as "System Shared" and bandwidth as "System Dependent." This means the Intel part's memory performance varies based on the host platform's RAM configuration.

Clock speeds differ significantly. AMD runs at 825 MHz base and boosts to 900 MHz. Intel runs at 350 MHz base and boosts to 1000 MHz. The Intel part has a higher peak clock by 100 MHz, but the AMD part has a much higher floor.

The compute unit counts show a 2:1 ratio in shading units (384 versus 192) and a 2.67:1 ratio in ROPs (8 versus 3). TMU counts are identical at 24.

Power and physical specifications differ. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is rated at 15 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) using a Ring Bus interface. The AMD FirePro W4190M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The database does not list a TDP for the AMD part.

API support shows generational differences. AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part has a higher feature level for DirectX and a newer Vulkan version.

Display outputs are context-dependent for both: AMD is "Portable Device Dependent" (MXM modules are installed in laptops with varying display configurations), and Intel is "Motherboard Dependent" (integrated graphics rely on the motherboard's output ports).

Production status is the same for both: End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL benchmark shows a 25.6% lead, and the FP32 specification (691.2 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS) reinforces that advantage. For workloads that rely on single-precision floating-point math, the AMD part is clearly the stronger performer. The 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth also provides predictable performance, unlike the system-dependent bandwidth of the Intel part.

The AMD part also wins in pixel throughput. With 7.200 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s, the FirePro W4190M has more than double the fill rate. This matters for applications that involve heavy fragment processing, though the modest 8 ROPs limit absolute resolution capabilities.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in API modernity. Vulkan 1.3 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level are both ahead of the AMD part's Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). For software that takes advantage of newer API features, the Intel part has better compatibility potential. The FP16 support (768.0 GFLOPS at 2:1 ratio) is another area where Intel has a capability AMD does not list.

The Intel part also wins in power efficiency by specification. At 15 W TDP, it is designed for ultraportable and mainstream laptops where battery life and thermal limits are primary constraints. The AMD part has no recorded TDP, but as a discrete MXM module, it inherently consumes more power than an integrated solution. The Intel part's wider clock range (350 MHz to 1000 MHz) also suggests better idle power characteristics, dropping to very low clocks when the GPU is not under load.

Texture throughput is the one area where Intel leads in a head-to-head specification comparison. The 24.00 GTexel/s versus AMD's 21.60 GTexel/s gives Intel a 10.1% advantage in texture fill rate, though the database does not include a direct texture benchmark to confirm real-world impact.

For use-case guidance, the AMD FirePro, with its 26th percentile ranking and compute advantage, suits applications where GPU compute is the priority and a discrete mobile workstation is acceptable. The Intel HD Graphics 630, at the 24th percentile, suits general-purpose computing where driver maturity, API support, and integration with the host CPU matter more than raw throughput. The Intel part's higher Metal score of 5099, presumably reflecting its performance in Apple's Metal framework, could also be relevant for Mac users running Metal-optimized applications.

In the database's win tally, the AMD part holds a 1-0 lead over the Intel part in head-to-head benchmarks, with the OpenCL test being the deciding data point.