Iris Plus Graphics 640 vs GeForce GTX 580
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 580 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by a whopping 207% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 378 | 666 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.17 | 0.74 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Kaby Lake GT3e |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (13 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
| Current price | $14.89 (0x MSRP) | $669 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 580 has 1004% better value for money than Iris Plus Graphics 640.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | 512 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 772 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 49.4 billion/sec | 52.80 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,581.1 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 580 and Iris Plus Graphics 640 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin and One 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | 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 | 1536 MB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2004 MHz (4008 data rate) | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.4 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.103 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce GTX 580 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by 207% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 580 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by 207% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 580 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by 155% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 580 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by 257% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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:
| 900p | 53
+231%
| 16−18
−231%
|
| Full HD | 96
+300%
| 24
−300%
|
| 1200p | 78
+225%
| 24−27
−225%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+162%
|
12−14
−162%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+136%
|
14−16
−136%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+162%
|
12−14
−162%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+136%
|
14−16
−136%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+162%
|
12−14
−162%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+500%
|
4
−500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
This is how GTX 580 and Iris Plus Graphics 640 compete in popular games:
- GTX 580 is 231% faster in 900p
- GTX 580 is 300% faster in 1080p
- GTX 580 is 225% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 580 is 1100% faster than the Iris Plus Graphics 640.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 580 surpassed Iris Plus Graphics 640 in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.81 | 3.85 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 3 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 15 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 640 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 580 is a desktop card while Iris Plus Graphics 640 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
