HD Graphics P630 vs Iris Pro Graphics 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 580 with HD Graphics P630, including specs and performance data.
Iris Pro Graphics 580 outperforms HD Graphics P630 by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 654 | 771 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.70 | 14.11 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | Kaby Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 5 August 2016 (8 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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 14 nm++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 68.40 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.094 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 9 | 3 |
| TMUs | 72 | 24 |
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 3.0 x1 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1740 MB |
| 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.103 |
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
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 | 18
+80%
| 10−12
−80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+26.1%
|
45−50
−26.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+41.8%
|
55−60
−41.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
−86.7%
|
27−30
+86.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+26.1%
|
45−50
−26.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
−100%
|
27−30
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+38.5%
|
12−14
−38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+26.1%
|
45−50
−26.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+32%
|
24−27
−32%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+75%
|
27−30
−75%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 580 and HD Graphics P630 compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 80% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 200% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics P630 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is ahead in 53 tests (93%)
- HD Graphics P630 is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.12 | 2.68 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 5 August 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1740 MB |
Iris Pro Graphics 580 has a 53.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 3666.4% higher maximum VRAM amount.
HD Graphics P630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months.
The Iris Pro Graphics 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics P630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 580 is a notebook card while HD Graphics P630 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
