AMD FirePro M4000 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs AMD FirePro M4000 is a comparison of two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel part is a 2014 integrated GPU built on a 14 nm process, while the AMD FirePro M4000 is a 2012 discrete mobile workstation GPU on a 28 nm process. Benchmark data shows the Intel solution holds a narrow edge in raw compute performance, but the two cards occupy very different positions in terms of memory architecture, power envelope, and API support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The Intel part leads by 3.2% in this specific benchmark.

Q: How do these two GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 sits within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M and 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX. The AMD FirePro M4000 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which is also a nearest rival to the Intel part.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a TDP of 15 W, while the AMD FirePro M4000 is rated at 33 W. This makes the Intel solution less than half the power draw of the AMD option.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of OpenGL?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 supports OpenGL 4.6, whereas the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is limited to OpenGL 4.4. The AMD part also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, compared to Vulkan 1.0 on the Intel side.

Q: What type of memory does each GPU use?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 relies on System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

Q: What is the release date for each product?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 was released on 2012-06-26, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 was released on 2014-09-04. Both are now classified as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is built on Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, specifically the Broadwell GT3e chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. In contrast, the AMD FirePro M4000 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Chelsea chip, produced on a 28 nm process by TSMC. This process advantage gives Intel a significant efficiency lead, reflected in the 15 W TDP versus 33 W for the AMD part.

The AMD FirePro M4000 provides transistor and die size data that the Intel part lacks. AMD's chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are not specified in the available data.

Compute unit configurations differ markedly. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 packs 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 6 raster output pipelines. The AMD FirePro M4000 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means AMD has 33% more shaders but 33% fewer texture units, and nearly three times the ROP count. The Intel part achieves a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s for AMD, while AMD wins pixel rate at 10.80 GPixel/s compared to 4.800 GPixel/s for Intel. In raw FP32 compute, AMD edges ahead with 691.2 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS for Intel.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses System Shared memory, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM with no dedicated VRAM. The AMD FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The Intel part's memory clock is listed as "System Shared" with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," making direct comparisons difficult.

The bus interface also differs: Intel uses a Ring Bus (typical for integrated graphics), while AMD uses MXM-A (3.0) as a discrete MXM module. The Intel part is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs, whereas the AMD card has portable-device-dependent outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, which measures general-purpose compute performance. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712, and the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. This gives Intel a 3.2% victory in this single test.

The delta is modest but consistent with the broader competitive landscape. The Intel part's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, scores 5721 — just 0.1% ahead of the Iris Pro. Meanwhile, the AMD FirePro M4000's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5604, which is 1.2% faster than the FirePro. Interestingly, the Quadro M500M also appears in the Intel part's rival list, where it trails by 1.9%.

The 3.2% delta between the two cards is within the noise of the rival clusters. The Intel card sits between the GTX 670MX (5721) and the Radeon HD 8790M (5691), while the AMD card is bracketed by the MX130 (5508) and the Quadro M500M (5604). Both cards occupy the 32nd to 33rd percentile across all GPUs, indicating they are firmly in the mid-to-low performance tier.

What the benchmark does not capture is the context of memory. The Intel part's System Shared memory means its OpenCL score could be heavily influenced by system RAM speed and capacity, which varies by platform. The AMD part's dedicated GDDR5 provides consistent bandwidth that is not subject to host system variables.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 | AMD FirePro M4000 |

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

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not specified | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 48 | 32 |

| Raster Output Pipelines | 6 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.800 GPixel/s | 10.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.40 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 614.4 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| OpenGL Support | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.0 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-04 | 2012-06-26 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Not specified | Radeon Pro Mobile |

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1), which is notable given their respective release dates. The Intel part has a lower base clock of 300 MHz with a boost of 800 MHz, while the AMD part does not list base or boost clocks but specifies a memory clock of 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 3.2%. This suggests that for general-purpose compute workloads, the Intel part has a slight advantage. Its 15 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, consuming less than half the power of the AMD FirePro M4000. The Intel part also offers a higher texture rate at 38.40 GTexel/s, which could benefit texture-heavy workloads.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins on several architectural fronts despite losing the benchmark. Its dedicated 1024 MB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a clear advantage over System Shared memory, especially for workloads that require consistent memory access without contention from the CPU. The AMD part also has more shading units (512 vs 384) and more ROPs (16 vs 6), leading to a higher pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s. For fill-rate-bound tasks, the AMD card is superior.

The AMD part also wins on API support, offering OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0 on Intel. This could matter for compatibility with newer applications and games that require updated graphics APIs.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 3.2% and does so while consuming 15 W versus 33 W for the AMD FirePro M4000. This efficiency advantage is substantial and suggests that for integrated graphics in a thin-and-light laptop, the Intel part provides better compute per watt.

However, the AMD FirePro M4000 is a discrete GPU with dedicated GDDR5 memory, and that matters. The 64.00 GB/s of guaranteed bandwidth versus "System Dependent" bandwidth for Intel means the AMD card will have more predictable performance in memory-intensive scenarios. The AMD part also offers superior pixel throughput and more shading units, even if its overall OpenCL score is lower.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical — 33rd for Intel and 32nd for AMD — indicating both are entry-level performers in the broader GPU landscape. The Intel part edges out the AMD card by 3.2% in compute, but the AMD card counters with better API support and a more robust memory subsystem.

Choosing between them depends on the platform. For a system where the Intel IGP is the only option, the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is a capable compute solution with low power draw. For a system with an MXM slot that requires a discrete GPU, the FirePro M4000 offers dedicated memory and better fill rates, though at more than double the power cost. Benchmark results indicate the Intel part is the faster compute device, but the AMD part remains competitive for graphics-specific tasks that benefit from its memory bandwidth and ROP count.