Radeon HD 6950M vs Iris Pro Graphics 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 580 and Radeon HD 6950M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro Graphics 580 outperforms HD 6950M by a substantial 33% 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 | 713 | 792 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.59 | 5.10 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | Blackcomb |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (15 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 | 960 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 580 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 1,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 68.40 | 27.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.094 TFLOPS | 1.114 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 9 | 32 |
| TMUs | 72 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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 | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 115.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 outputs |
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) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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:
| Full HD | 18
+50%
| 12−14
−50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+36.8%
|
18−20
−36.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+18.4%
|
45−50
−18.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+25.8%
|
60−65
−25.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
−107%
|
30−35
+107%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+36.8%
|
18−20
−36.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+18.4%
|
45−50
−18.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+18.4%
|
45−50
−18.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+36.8%
|
18−20
−36.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+36%
|
24−27
−36%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+17.2%
|
27−30
−17.2%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+42.4%
|
30−35
−42.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 580 and HD 6950M compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 is 50% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, 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 6950M is 121% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 580 performs better in 51 tests (96%)
- HD 6950M performs better in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.40 | 3.31 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 4 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 580 has a 33% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 233% lower power consumption.
The Iris Pro Graphics 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M 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.
