Radeon 820M vs Iris Pro Graphics 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 580 and Radeon 820M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro Graphics 580 outperforms 820M by a whopping 241% 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 | 697 | 1058 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.34 | no data |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | RDNA 3+ (2024) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | Krackan Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 2 June 2024 (1 year 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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 68.40 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.094 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 9 | no data |
| TMUs | 72 | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | Ring Bus | 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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 7500 MHz |
| Shared memory | + | + |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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
+260%
| 5−6
−260%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+70.6%
|
30−35
−70.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+160%
|
30−33
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+70.6%
|
30−35
−70.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+263%
|
16−18
−263%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+860%
|
5−6
−860%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 580 and Radeon 820M compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 260% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 1700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Pro Graphics 580 surpassed Radeon 820M in all 45 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.16 | 1.22 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 2 June 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
Iris Pro Graphics 580 has a 241% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 820M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Pro Graphics 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 820M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
