GeForce GT 240M vs Iris Pro Graphics P580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics P580 and GeForce GT 240M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro Graphics P580 outperforms 240M by a whopping 852% 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 | 678 | 1286 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 24.60 | 1.68 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 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 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 75.60 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.21 TFLOPS | 0.1162 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 174 |
| ROPs | 9 | 8 |
| TMUs | 72 | 16 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | Up to 600 (DDR2), Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 | Single Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| 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) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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 | 110−120
+817%
| 12
−817%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+394%
|
16−18
−394%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30
−126%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+960%
|
5−6
−960%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics P580 and GT 240M compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 817% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 1750% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Pro Graphics P580 surpassed GT 240M in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.57 | 0.48 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics P580 has a 852.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Pro Graphics P580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 240M 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.
