GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs Iris Pro Graphics 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 580 with GeForce GTX 550 Ti, including specs and performance data.
Iris Pro Graphics 580 outperforms GTX 550 Ti by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 645 | 697 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 65 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.78 |
| Power efficiency | 22.03 | 2.40 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | GF116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 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 | 68.40 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.094 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 9 | 24 |
| TMUs | 72 | 32 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 4.1 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 98.4 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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
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 3D 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 | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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. 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 45−50
+18.4%
| 38
−18.4%
|
| Full HD | 19
−89.5%
| 36
+89.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.14 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 75−80
+16.2%
|
65−70
−16.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Elden Ring | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
+17.2%
|
27−30
−17.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 580 and GTX 550 Ti compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 18% faster in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 89% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 200% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 550 Ti is 140% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is ahead in 53 tests (88%)
- GTX 550 Ti is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.79 | 4.04 |
| 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 |
Iris Pro Graphics 580 has a 18.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 673.3% lower power consumption.
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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
