Radeon HD 8550M vs Iris Pro Graphics 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 580 and Radeon HD 8550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Pro Graphics 580 outperforms HD 8550M by a whopping 219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 653 | 989 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.89 | no data |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | Sun |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 13 July 2014 (10 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 | 576 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 68.40 | 17.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.094 TFLOPS | 0.544 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 9 | 8 |
| TMUs | 72 | 20 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 18
+260%
| 5−6
−260%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+65.7%
|
35−40
−65.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+152%
|
30−35
−152%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+65.7%
|
35−40
−65.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+65.7%
|
35−40
−65.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 580 and HD 8550M compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 260% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 1400% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8550M is 29% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is ahead in 46 tests (94%)
- HD 8550M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.79 | 1.50 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 13 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Iris Pro Graphics 580 has a 219.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Pro Graphics 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550M 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.
