Radeon 610M vs Iris Pro Graphics P580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics P580 and Radeon 610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Pro Graphics P580 outperforms 610M by an impressive 82% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 634 | 804 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 72 |
| Power efficiency | 23.97 | 13.20 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 75.60 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.21 TFLOPS | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 9 | 4 |
| TMUs | 72 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 2 |
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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
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 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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
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 | 24−27
+71.4%
| 14
−71.4%
|
| 1440p | 75−80
+74.4%
| 43
−74.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−148%
|
52
+148%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−81%
|
38
+81%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16
−31.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+64.7%
|
50−55
−64.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
13
−7.7%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+75%
|
8
−75%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+85%
|
20−22
−85%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−13%
|
61
+13%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics P580 and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 71% faster in 1080p
- Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 74% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 400% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 610M is 148% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics P580 is ahead in 49 tests (88%)
- Radeon 610M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.52 | 2.49 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
Iris Pro Graphics P580 has a 81.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Pro Graphics P580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 610M 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.
