AMD FirePro M4000 vs Intel UHD Graphics P630 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4000 and Intel UHD Graphics P630 occupy different corners of the mobile graphics world, yet their benchmark scores place them surprisingly close. The FirePro M4000, a discrete MXM module from 2012, edges out the integrated Intel solution in OpenCL compute, but the P630 counters with a newer API feature set and a Vulkan score that the AMD part cannot match. The data reveals a clash between an aging but dedicated GPU and a modern, power-efficient integrated processor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 claims the sole direct head-to-head victory in this comparison, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5537 against the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5111. This 8.3% advantage shows that for raw compute workloads leveraging OpenCL, the older discrete part still holds a measurable edge. Its 512 shading units and dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory provide a structural advantage that the integrated Intel solution cannot overcome in this specific API.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630, however, wins where the AMD part cannot compete: API modernity. The Intel chip supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the FirePro M4000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. In the Vulkan benchmark, the Intel part scores 5628, a figure that exceeds the AMD’s OpenCL result of 5537. This suggests that in applications built around Vulkan, the Intel solution is the more capable performer, despite its lower raw shading throughput.

The data further indicates the FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel P630 is at the 31st. This near-identical percentile ranking underscores that these are peers in overall performance, with the choice between them depending heavily on workload type. The AMD part’s win is in legacy compute; the Intel part’s win is in forward-looking graphics APIs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two is vast. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process, with no transistor or die size data available. The process node difference alone—28 nm versus 14 nm+++—explains much of the efficiency gap.

The FirePro M4000 is built around 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Intel P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, but only 3 ROPs. This disparity in ROP count is stark: 16 versus 3. The AMD part’s pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s is three times the Intel’s 3.600 GPixel/s, a direct consequence of the ROP deficit. Conversely, the Intel part has a higher texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, meaning its fewer TMUs are clocked effectively higher.

Memory architecture could not be more different. The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel P630 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as “System Dependent.” This means the Intel part’s memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system’s RAM, a variable that the FirePro does not face. The AMD part’s fixed 64.00 GB/s is a guaranteed floor, whereas the Intel part’s performance could be higher or lower depending on the platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD FirePro M4000 wins decisively. Its score of 5537 beats the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5111 by 8.3%. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial lead in a compute-oriented test. The FirePro’s 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Intel’s 460.8 GFLOPS provides a clear theoretical basis for this result. The AMD part simply has more raw floating-point throughput available.

However, the Intel part has its own benchmark triumph, albeit outside the direct head-to-head comparison. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 5628 is higher than the AMD’s OpenCL score of 5537. While these are different APIs and not directly comparable, the number is telling. It shows the Intel architecture can achieve competitive compute results when the software is optimized for its feature set. The Intel part’s FP16 performance of 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) also indicates a capability the AMD part lacks entirely, as the FirePro M4000 has no FP16 data listed.

Looking at nearest rivals, the FirePro M4000’s 5537 OpenCL score places it 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and 0.7% ahead of the GTX 765M (5501), but 1.2% behind the Quadro M500M (5604). The Intel P630’s average benchmark score of 5370 is 0.2% ahead of the Radeon R7 M445 (5358) and 0.9% ahead of the GeForce 840M (5322), yet 0.8% behind the Radeon R7 M365X (5416). These proximity values confirm both parts are clustered in a narrow performance band.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5537, beating the Intel UHD Graphics P630’s 5111 by 8.3%.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics P630 outperform the AMD part in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel part scores 5628 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than the AMD’s OpenCL score of 5537. However, no direct head-to-head Vulkan comparison exists in the data.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth advantage of the AMD FirePro M4000?

A: The FirePro M4000 has a dedicated 64.00 GB/s bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 bus. The Intel P630 uses System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as “System Dependent.”

Q: How do their pixel processing capabilities compare?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s with 16 ROPs, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a pixel rate of 3.600 GPixel/s with only 3 ROPs. The AMD part is three times faster in this metric.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The AMD FirePro M4000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How close are these GPUs in overall performance percentiles?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 is at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is at the 31st percentile. They are statistically near-identical in overall standing.

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion. The AMD FirePro M4000 is the superior choice for applications that rely on OpenCL compute and benefit from dedicated memory bandwidth. Its 8.3% lead in the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark is significant, and its 64.00 GB/s of fixed bandwidth versus the Intel’s system-dependent memory makes it a more predictable performer in memory-sensitive workloads. The pixel rate advantage—10.80 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s—further solidifies its case for tasks involving heavy rasterization.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630, however, is the more future-proof option. Its support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) means it can run newer graphics applications that the AMD part cannot. The Vulkan score of 5628 suggests that in modern API environments, the Intel part can exceed the AMD’s OpenCL performance. Its 15 W TDP versus the AMD’s 33 W also makes it a dramatically more power-efficient solution, which is critical for thin-and-light laptops.

For legacy compute tasks and applications locked to OpenCL, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the clear winner. For modern gaming and Vulkan-based workloads, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the better bet, assuming the system’s RAM is sufficient. The near-identical percentile rankings (32nd vs 31st) mean that neither GPU offers a substantial overall performance advantage. The choice ultimately hinges on API support and power constraints, not raw speed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4000 | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 9.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+++ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

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

| Shading Units | 512 | 192 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.80 GPixel/s | 3.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 28.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 691.2 GFLOPS | 460.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 33 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2012-06-26 | 2020-05-12 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |