GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs Iris Pro Graphics 580
Aggregated performance score
Iris Pro Graphics 580 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 19% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 606 | 650 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 55 |
Value for money | 0.13 | 0.28 |
Architecture | Gen. 9 Skylake (2015−2016) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | GF116 |
Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
Release date | 1 September 2015 (8 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Current price | $2427 | $197 (1.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 550 Ti has 115% better value for money than Iris Pro Graphics 580.
Technical specs
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 | 72 | 192 |
CUDA cores | no data | 192 |
Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 900 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 189 million | 1,170 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 116 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
Texture fill rate | 72.00 | 28.8 billion/sec |
Floating-point performance | no data | 691.2 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Iris Pro Graphics 580 and GeForce GTX 550 Ti 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 | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 8.25" (21 cm) |
Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
Width | no data | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | One 6-pin |
SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | eDRAM + 64/128 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | System Shared | 4.1 GB/s |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 98.4 GB/s |
Shared memory | + | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI |
Multi monitor support | no data | + |
HDMI | no data | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Quick Sync | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | 1.1.97 | N/A |
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.
Iris Pro Graphics 580 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 19% 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%
Iris Pro Graphics 580 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 19% 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%
Iris Pro Graphics 580 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 42% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 45−50
+18.4%
| 38
−18.4%
|
Full HD | 18
−106%
| 37
+106%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Metro Exodus | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 580 and GTX 550 Ti compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 18.4% faster than GTX 550 Ti in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 106% faster than Iris Pro Graphics 580 in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 200% faster than the GTX 550 Ti.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is ahead in 51 test (85%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (15%)
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 4.75 | 3.99 |
Recency | 1 September 2015 | 15 March 2011 |
Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 2 GB |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 116 Watt |
The Iris Pro Graphics 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 580 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.