Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs Intel UHD Graphics P750 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains a single direct comparison between Intel UHD Graphics P750 and Intel UHD Graphics 730: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the P750 scores 6554, while the 730 scores 5988. That translates to a 9.5% advantage for the P750, a clear but not overwhelming margin. The P750 wins the only head-to-head test in the database, giving it a 1 to 0 record against the 730.

To understand what that 9.5% gap means, it helps to look at how each GPU sits relative to its own nearest rivals. The P750’s average benchmark score is 6554, which places it at the 38th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon HD 7730M, scores 6581, which is only 0.4% higher. The P750 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513, 0.6% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493, 0.9% lower), while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, 0.9% higher). Essentially, the P750 operates in a tight cluster where the difference between the best and worst nearby rival is less than 2%. This suggests that the P750’s 9.5% lead over the 730 is a meaningful step within the integrated GPU hierarchy, but it is not a generational leap.

The 730, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5929, placing it at the 33rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are all slightly ahead: the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0.4% higher), NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, 0.5% higher), AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.7% higher), and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.9% higher). The 730 is the lowest-scoring unit among its four closest competitors, though the deltas are all under 1%. This paints a picture of a GPU that sits at the lower edge of its peer group, whereas the P750 sits near the middle of its own.

The Geekbench Vulkan test appears only for the 730, which scores 5870. There is no corresponding Vulkan score for the P750 in the database, so a direct comparison on that API cannot be made. However, the 730’s Vulkan result is within 2% of its OpenCL result, indicating consistent performance across those two compute APIs. For the P750, only OpenCL data is recorded, so its Vulkan behavior remains unmeasured.

What is striking about the head-to-head result is the magnitude of the delta. A 9.5% difference in OpenCL performance is larger than the typical spread among either GPU’s nearest rivals. For example, the P750’s nearest rivals span a range of about 1.8% total (from 6493 to 6612), and the 730’s rivals span about 0.9% (from 5955 to 5982). In that context, the 9.5% gap between the two Intel parts is substantial: it is roughly five times the width of the P750’s entire rival cluster. The data implies that the P750 is not just marginally faster, it is operating in a different performance tier despite sharing the same architecture and process node.

Another way to frame the result: the 730’s best OpenCL score (5988) is still 8.6% below the P750’s score (6554). Even if the 730 were to match its nearest rival’s upper bound (5982, which it actually exceeds slightly), it would still fall short of the P750 by roughly 570 points. That is a gap large enough to affect real-world compute workloads, though not large enough to suggest the P750 is in a different class entirely, both remain firmly in the integrated and low-end discrete GPU range.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark recorded in the database?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6554, compared to the Intel UHD Graphics 730’s 5988, a 9.5% difference.

Q: How does the P750 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The P750’s average score of 6554 places it between the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, 0.9% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513, 0.6% lower). It also outperforms the AMD Radeon HD 7730M by 0.4% (6581) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M by 0.9% (6493).

Q: How does the 730 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 730’s average score of 5929 is the lowest among its four nearest rivals. It trails the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0.4% higher), NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, 0.5% higher), AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.7% higher), and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.9% higher).

Q: Is there a Vulkan benchmark for both GPUs?

A: The database records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870 for the 730, but no Vulkan score is listed for the P750. Therefore, a Vulkan comparison cannot be made from the available data.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each GPU?

A: The P750 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, while the 730 sits at the 33rd percentile. The P750’s higher percentile aligns with its higher OpenCL score.

Q: Does the 730 have any benchmark where it beats the P750?

A: No. The 730 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. The P750 wins the sole recorded test (Geekbench OpenCL).

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on Intel’s Rocket Lake chip and use the Generation 12.1 architecture, which is also described as HD Graphics-W (Rocket Lake) for the P750 and HD Graphics (Rocket Lake) for the 730. The process node is identical, 14 nm+++, and the foundry is Intel for both. There are no differences in the underlying manufacturing process, so any performance gap must come from the execution resources and clock behavior, not from a node advantage.

The shading unit count is where the first major divergence appears. The P750 has 256 shading units, while the 730 has 192. That is a 33% difference in raw shader count, which directly explains a large portion of the compute performance gap. However, the texture mapping units (TMUs) tell a more extreme story: the P750 has 64 TMUs, while the 730 has only 12. That is a 5.3x difference in texture units, a colossal gap that suggests the P750 is designed to handle much heavier texture filtering workloads. The render output units (ROPs) follow a similar pattern: the P750 has 32 ROPs, the 730 has 8, a 4x difference. These resource disparities are far larger than the 9.5% benchmark delta would imply, which raises an interesting question: why does the OpenCL score not reflect the full hardware gap?

Part of the answer may lie in the nature of the benchmark. Geekbench OpenCL tends to stress compute and memory throughput rather than pure texture or pixel throughput. The 730’s lower TMU and ROP counts would hurt more in gaming or graphics-heavy tasks, which are not represented in the recorded benchmarks. The P750’s pixel rate is 41.60 GPixel/s versus the 730’s 10.40 GPixel/s, a 4x difference, and its texture rate is 83.20 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, a 5.3x difference. These are enormous gaps that would manifest in real-world rendering workloads, but the OpenCL test only captures a 9.5% difference. The implication is that the P750’s extra resources are either underutilized in the compute test or bottlenecked by shared memory bandwidth, which is listed as System Dependent for both.

The FP32 throughput also differs meaningfully: the P750 delivers 665.6 GFLOPS, while the 730 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS, a 33% advantage for the P750. FP16 performance follows the same ratio, with the P750 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS and the 730 at 998.4 GFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio. The fact that the FP32 advantage (33%) matches the shading unit advantage (33%) shows that the shader count is the primary driver of compute performance, while the TMU and ROP differences are likely optimized for different graphics workloads. The 730’s dramatically lower TMU and ROP counts suggest it is positioned for basic display output and light 2D work, whereas the P750 carries hardware capable of more demanding 3D rendering, even if the recorded OpenCL score does not fully expose that capability.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. The API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory architecture is also identical: System Shared for size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This means both GPUs rely on the host system’s memory, and performance will scale with the platform’s memory configuration. The P750’s higher shading and texture resources may be partially starved in systems with slower shared memory, which could explain why the benchmark gap is smaller than the hardware gap.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share many specifications: both are Rocket Lake parts on 14 nm+++, both use a Ring Bus interface, both have a 15 W TDP, both are IGP slot width, both have motherboard-dependent display outputs, and both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The memory configuration is identical: System Shared for size, type, bus width, and System Dependent for bandwidth. Neither has a launch MSRP, and neither has power connectors or a suggested PSU.

The differences are concentrated in the execution resources and clock behavior. The base clock differs: the P750 runs at 350 MHz, the 730 at 300 MHz. The boost clock is identical at 1300 MHz for both. The shading units differ (256 vs 192), as do TMUs (64 vs 12) and ROPs (32 vs 8). The pixel rate is 41.60 GPixel/s for the P750 and 10.40 GPixel/s for the 730. The texture rate is 83.20 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 665.6 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, and FP16 is 1,331.2 GFLOPS versus 998.4 GFLOPS.

The production status is End-of-life for both, but the release date differs: the 730 has a recorded release date of 2021-03-29, while the P750 has no release date in the database. The generation field also differs slightly: the P750 is listed as HD Graphics-W (Rocket Lake), while the 730 is HD Graphics (Rocket Lake). This naming distinction may reflect a different tier within the same architecture, with the “W” suffix possibly indicating a workstation-oriented variant.

Where Each One Wins

The P750 wins the only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its 6554 score represents a 9.5% advantage over the 730’s 5988. The P750 also holds advantages in every measured specification that affects compute and rendering: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher base clock, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and higher FP32/FP16 throughput. For any workload that scales with these resources, the P750 is the clear choice. The data suggests it is better suited for tasks like software rendering, compute acceleration, or any graphics workload that goes beyond basic desktop composition.

The 730, by contrast, has no wins in the database. Its only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870, is lower than its own OpenCL score and cannot be compared to the P750. The 730’s lower resource counts and lower base clock mean it will trail the P750 in any scenario that uses the GPU’s compute or rendering capabilities. However, the 730’s identical boost clock (1300 MHz) and identical TDP (15 W) mean that in purely idle or light-load situations, the two GPUs would behave similarly, though the 730’s lower base clock (300 vs 350 MHz) could slightly reduce power draw at rest, though this is not measured in the database.

For use cases that are not covered by the recorded benchmarks, the specification differences imply a clear split. The P750’s 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs make it dramatically more capable for texture-heavy and pixel-heavy work, such as 3D rendering, photo editing with GPU acceleration, or older games that rely on fixed-function pipelines. The 730’s 12 TMUs and 8 ROPs are sufficient for 2D desktop acceleration, video decode, and very light 3D, but the 4x to 5.3x resource gap means it would struggle where the P750 would remain comfortable. The 730’s 33% lower FP32 throughput also means it is less suited for compute tasks like OpenCL-based encoding or scientific workloads.

The Verdict

The database presents a one-sided comparison: the Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it wins on every specification that matters for GPU compute and rendering. The 9.5% OpenCL lead is solid, but the underlying hardware differences are far larger, with the P750 carrying 33% more shading units, 5.3x more TMUs, and 4x more ROPs. This suggests that in workloads not captured by the OpenCL test, the P750’s advantage could be significantly larger than 9.5%. The 730’s lower resource counts place it at the 33rd percentile, while the P750 sits at the 38th, a modest gap in percentile but a clear one in absolute terms.

For anyone choosing between these two, the decision depends on the workload. If the task involves any form of GPU compute, 3D rendering, or texture-heavy graphics, the P750 is the only choice based on the data. Its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput give it a decisive edge that the 730 cannot match. The 730’s only advantage is its recorded release date, which may indicate wider availability, but the database shows no performance scenario where the 730 wins.

The 730 is acceptable for systems that only need basic display output, where the GPU is a peripheral rather than a workhorse. Its 15 W TDP and System Shared memory mean it will not burden the system, and its identical boost clock to the P750 ensures similar peak performance in short bursts. But for any sustained GPU workload, the P750’s extra execution resources translate to real performance headroom. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the P750 is the stronger GPU, and the 730 is a lighter-duty alternative for users who do not need the P750’s capabilities.