Intel UHD Graphics 630 vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X

Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 630 and AMD Radeon R9 M265X 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 UHD Graphics 630

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 5 month(s) later
• Around 92% higher boost clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 625 MHz
• Around 15% higher texture fill rate: 28.8 GTexel / s vs 25 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1244 vs 1138
• Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 302 vs 210
• Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.89 vs 20.633
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3309 vs 3214
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3309 vs 3214

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M265X

• Around 64% higher core clock speed: 575 MHz vs 350 MHz
• 26.7x more pipelines: 640 vs 24
• Around 74% better floating-point performance: 800.0 gflops vs 460.8 gflops
• Around 89% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8829 vs 4671
• Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 525.038 vs 340.911
• Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.169 vs 1.785
• Around 82% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 37.076 vs 20.414
• 3.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 94.404 vs 29.514
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1972 vs 1870
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1765 vs 1596
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1972 vs 1870
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1765 vs 1596

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M265X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1244 1138
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	302 210
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4671 8829
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.89 20.633
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	340.911 525.038
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.785 2.169
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	20.414 37.076
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.514 94.404
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 1972
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 1765
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3214
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 1972
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 1765
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3214

Compare specifications (specs)