Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs Quadro P5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5200 with Iris Pro Graphics P580, including specs and performance data.
P5200 outperforms Pro Graphics P580 by a whopping 452% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 246 | 698 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 20.70 | 25.03 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Skylake GT4e |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 1 September 2015 (11 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 1556 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1746 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 279.4 | 75.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.94 TFLOPS | 1.21 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 9 |
| TMUs | 160 | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 64 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 120
+471%
| 21−24
−471%
|
| 4K | 48
+500%
| 8−9
−500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+542%
|
12−14
−542%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+595%
|
21−24
−595%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+542%
|
12−14
−542%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+425%
|
20−22
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+595%
|
21−24
−595%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+493%
|
14−16
−493%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+345%
|
27−30
−345%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+365%
|
21−24
−365%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+514%
|
14−16
−514%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+468%
|
18−20
−468%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+200%
|
60−65
−200%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+542%
|
12−14
−542%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+425%
|
20−22
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+595%
|
21−24
−595%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+219%
|
80−85
−219%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+207%
|
40−45
−207%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+493%
|
14−16
−493%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+345%
|
27−30
−345%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+365%
|
21−24
−365%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+514%
|
14−16
−514%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+506%
|
16−18
−506%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+578%
|
9−10
−578%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+468%
|
18−20
−468%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 118
+743%
|
14−16
−743%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+200%
|
60−65
−200%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+425%
|
20−22
−425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+207%
|
40−45
−207%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+493%
|
14−16
−493%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+365%
|
21−24
−365%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+468%
|
18−20
−468%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
+364%
|
14−16
−364%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+200%
|
60−65
−200%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+345%
|
27−30
−345%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+578%
|
9−10
−578%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+419%
|
35−40
−419%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+1200%
|
4−5
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+386%
|
35−40
−386%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+327%
|
45−50
−327%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1775%
|
4−5
−1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+600%
|
9−10
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+545%
|
10−12
−545%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+650%
|
6−7
−650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+644%
|
9−10
−644%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+648%
|
21−24
−648%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+412%
|
16−18
−412%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+586%
|
7−8
−586%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
This is how Quadro P5200 and Iris Pro Graphics P580 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5200 is 471% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5200 is 500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5200 is 4500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P5200 surpassed Iris Pro Graphics P580 in all 60 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.75 | 4.85 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 1 September 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 64 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro P5200 has a 452% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
Iris Pro Graphics P580, on the other hand, has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 14% more advanced lithography process, and 567% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics P580 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Iris Pro Graphics P580 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
