Radeon HD 8210 vs Iris Pro Graphics 580

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking634not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency22.71no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameSkylake GT4eKalindi
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)31 January 2014 (10 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 cores576128
Core clock speed350 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt8 Watt
Texture fill rate68.402.400
Floating-point processing power1.094 TFLOPS0.0768 TFLOPS
ROPs94
TMUs728

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).

InterfaceRing BusIGP
WidthIGPIGP

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4System Shared
Maximum RAM amount64 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.2.131

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

Iris Pro Graphics 580 1841
+874%
HD 8210 189

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.

Iris Pro Graphics 580 3220
+837%
HD 8210 344

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Iris Pro Graphics 580 1903
+738%
HD 8210 227

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Iris Pro Graphics 580 14594
+666%
HD 8210 1905

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Iris Pro Graphics 580 184880
+591%
HD 8210 26764

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 September 2015 31 January 2014
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 8 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 580 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

HD 8210, on the other hand, has 87.5% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Iris Pro Graphics 580 and Radeon HD 8210. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580
Iris Pro Graphics 580
AMD Radeon HD 8210
Radeon HD 8210

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 17 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics 580 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 97 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.