AMD FirePro M5100 vs Intel UHD Graphics 750 Comparison

The data shows a close contest between two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions: the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 750 and the discrete AMD FirePro M5100. Benchmark results indicate that the FirePro M5100 holds the only direct performance win, but the UHD 750 counters with a broader feature set, a more modern architecture, and a significantly more efficient process node. The verdict ultimately depends on whether raw compute in a legacy workload or contemporary API support and power efficiency matter more.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD FirePro M5100 edges out the Intel UHD Graphics 750. The FirePro M5100 scores 6830, while the UHD 750 scores 6743, a difference of 1.3% in favor of the AMD part. This is a narrow margin, placing both GPUs in the same performance tier, but it is still a definitive win for the discrete solution in this specific compute workload.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a second benchmark result not available for the FirePro M5100: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8138. No Vulkan score exists for the AMD part, meaning the Intel GPU demonstrates a capability in modern graphics APIs that the FirePro cannot match in the available data. The UHD 750’s average benchmark score of 7441 is higher than the FirePro M5100’s average of 6830, reflecting that Vulkan result.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 holds an average score of 7441, which places it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, a -0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, a 0.2% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, a -0.4% delta), and the Intel Arc A310 (7550, a -1.4% delta). These deltas show the UHD 750 is effectively tied with those discrete and newer integrated parts.

The AMD FirePro M5100, with an average score of 6830, sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6764, a 1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, a -1.7% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698, a 2% delta), and the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975, a -2.1% delta). The FirePro M5100 is consistently slower than the UHD 750 when compared to their respective peer groups, with its closest rival (the R5 M240) still being over 2% faster.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6830, beating the Intel UHD Graphics 750’s 6743 by a 1.3% margin.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8138, a test for which no score is listed for the AMD FirePro M5100. This gives the Intel part a clear advantage in a modern graphics API workload.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of overall performance percentiles?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 7441, while the AMD FirePro M5100 sits at the 38th percentile with an average score of 6830.

Q: What are the closest performance rivals for each GPU?

A: For the Intel UHD Graphics 750, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with a score of 7447 and a -0.1% delta. For the AMD FirePro M5100, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M370 with a score of 6764 and a 1% delta.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 has a pixel rate of 12.40 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750’s 10.40 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the difference in texture fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 has a texture rate of 31.00 GTexel/s, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a texture rate of 20.80 GTexel/s, a substantial 49% advantage for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins in raw compute throughput and rasterization rates. Its FP32 performance of 992.0 GFLOPS is roughly 49% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750’s 665.6 GFLOPS. It also leads in texture fill rate with 31.00 GTexel/s versus 20.80 GTexel/s, and in pixel rate with 12.40 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s. These numbers indicate that the FirePro M5100 is the stronger choice for workloads that are heavily dependent on shader execution and texture sampling, such as legacy OpenCL compute tasks.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins in modern API support and API version compliance. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro M5100 supports only DirectX 12 (11_1). The Intel part also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD part supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The UHD 750’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 8138 demonstrates a functional advantage in using current graphics interfaces. Additionally, the Intel GPU has a higher average benchmark score (7441 vs 6830) and a higher percentile rank (40th vs 38th), suggesting better overall performance when considering its full benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in their memory architecture. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro M5100 has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a fixed 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro’s dedicated memory is a significant advantage for applications that require consistent, fast memory access without competing with the CPU.

Clock speeds also differ considerably. The Intel part runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 1300 MHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 775 MHz, with its memory clocked at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The Intel GPU compensates for its lower base clock with a much higher boost, while the AMD part relies on its higher sustained base clock.

The compute unit configuration is heavily skewed toward the AMD part. The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the UHD 750’s 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part also has a larger die size of 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, while the Intel part has no listed die size or transistor count. The bus interface differs as well: the Intel GPU uses a Ring Bus, while the AMD part uses MXM-A (3.0). The Intel part is an IGP, while the AMD part is an MXM Module.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is significant, as the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is built on Intel’s Generation 12.1 architecture using the Rocket Lake chip, while the AMD FirePro M5100 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip. The Intel part is manufactured on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel’s foundry, whereas the AMD part uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is stark: the Intel part is built on a much more advanced node, which contributes to its 15 W TDP, while the AMD part has no listed TDP.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is part of the HD Graphics (Rocket Lake) generation, while the AMD FirePro M5100 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. The AMD part’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility, and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor. In terms of feature support, the Intel GPU offers FP16 performance of 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1), while the AMD part has no listed FP16 capability. The Intel part also has a higher Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_1), though both support OpenGL 4.6 and lack ray tracing and tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data supports a performance win for the AMD FirePro M5100 in pure compute, as evidenced by its Geekbench OpenCL victory and its substantial leads in FP32, texture, and pixel rates. Users who need maximum throughput in legacy OpenCL workloads should pick the FirePro M5100, especially given its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth, which eliminates memory contention issues.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the more modern and versatile part, despite its single benchmark loss. Its average benchmark score of 7441 exceeds the FirePro’s 6830, and it offers a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8138, indicating superior performance in current graphics APIs. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, combined with a 15 W TDP on a 14 nm+++ process, makes it a far more efficient and future-ready option. The UHD 750’s higher percentile rank (40th vs 38th) and closer competition with newer GPUs like the Intel Arc A310 further cement its standing.

Ultimately, the choice is clear: for legacy compute and dedicated memory, the AMD FirePro M5100 wins. For modern API support, overall average performance, and power efficiency, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the superior option. The benchmark results indicate the Intel part is the better long-term investment, while the AMD part retains a niche for older, compute-heavy applications.