Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs GeForce GTX 950M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 950M and Iris Pro Graphics P580, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 950M outperforms Iris Pro Graphics P580 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 574 | 627 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.16 | 24.16 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Skylake GT4e |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 March 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 914 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.96 | 75.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.439 TFLOPS | 1.21 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 9 |
| TMUs | 40 | 72 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3 or GDDR5 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 64 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 or 2500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 or 80 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 29
+38.1%
| 21−24
−38.1%
|
| 1440p | 21
+31.3%
| 16−18
−31.3%
|
| 4K | 16
+33.3%
| 12−14
−33.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 48
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+124%
|
16−18
−124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+20%
|
24−27
−20%
|
| Fortnite | 30
−3.3%
|
30−35
+3.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| World of Tanks | 100−110
+22.4%
|
85−90
−22.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 15
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 67
+294%
|
16−18
−294%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+4%
|
24−27
−4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
−159%
|
40−45
+159%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+15.2%
|
30−35
−15.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| World of Tanks | 45−50
+26.3%
|
35−40
−26.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how GTX 950M and Iris Pro Graphics P580 compete in popular games:
- GTX 950M is 38% faster in 1080p
- GTX 950M is 31% faster in 1440p
- GTX 950M is 33% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 950M is 294% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 159% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 950M is ahead in 54 tests (90%)
- Iris Pro Graphics P580 is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.49 | 5.09 |
| Recency | 13 March 2015 | 1 September 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 64 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
GTX 950M has a 27.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Pro Graphics P580, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 950M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics P580 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
