Intel HD Graphics 615 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 615 and AMD Radeon R7 M260 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 615
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1050 MHz vs 980 MHz
- Around 12% higher texture fill rate: 25.2 GTexel / s vs 22.56 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 16 GB vs 4 GB
- Around 36% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 701 vs 517
- Around 48% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 185 vs 125
- Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 215.572 vs 145.3
- Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.238 vs 0.925
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1128 vs 1093
- Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2409 vs 1704
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1128 vs 1093
- Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2409 vs 1704
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 30 August 2016 vs 11 June 2014 |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz vs 980 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 25.2 GTexel / s vs 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB vs 4 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 701 vs 517 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 185 vs 125 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.572 vs 145.3 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.238 vs 0.925 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1128 vs 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2409 vs 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1128 vs 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2409 vs 1704 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 M260
- 3.1x more core clock speed: 940 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 16x more pipelines: 384 vs 24
- Around 79% better floating-point performance: 721.9 gflops vs 403.2 gflops
- Around 68% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5125 vs 3046
- Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.249 vs 12.486
- Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.992 vs 11.311
- 4.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 77.895 vs 18.292
- Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1404 vs 1128
- Around 24% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1404 vs 1128
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 940 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 24 |
| Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops vs 403.2 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5125 vs 3046 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.249 vs 12.486 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.992 vs 11.311 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.895 vs 18.292 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1404 vs 1128 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1404 vs 1128 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 615
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 M260
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 615 | AMD Radeon R7 M260 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 701 | 517 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 185 | 125 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3046 | 5125 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.486 | 14.249 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.572 | 145.3 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.238 | 0.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.311 | 19.992 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 18.292 | 77.895 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1128 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1128 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2409 | 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1128 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1128 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2409 | 1704 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 615 | AMD Radeon R7 M260 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 3.0 |
| Code name | Kaby Lake GT2 | Topaz |
| Launch date | 30 August 2016 | 11 June 2014 |
| Place in performance rating | 1477 | 1479 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Price now | $799 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 1.33 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 940 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 403.2 gflops | 721.9 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 25.2 GTexel / s | 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 5 Watt | |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 3,100 million |
| Compute units | 6 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 bit |
| Memory type | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PCIe 3.0 | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Switchable graphics | ||
| Zero Core | ||
| ZeroCore | ||

