GeForce MX250 vs Iris Pro Graphics P580

Place in performance ranking	579	543
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	no data	2.37
Architecture	Gen. 9 Skylake (2015−2016)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Skylake GT4e	N17S-G2
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 September 2015 (8 years ago)	20 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Current price	no data	$1165

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed Specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	72	384
Core clock speed	350 MHz	1518 MHz
Boost clock speed	1100 MHz	1582 MHz
Number of transistors	189 million	1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	10/25 Watt
Texture fill rate	75.60	24.91

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on Iris Pro Graphics P580 and GeForce MX250 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	4 GB
Memory bus width	eDRAM + 64/128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	48.06 GB/s
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

No outputs

Supported GPU 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 graphics 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	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.97	1.2
CUDA	no data	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Iris Pro Graphics P580 5.22

GeForce MX250 6.26
+19.9%

GeForce MX250 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics P580 by 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Iris Pro Graphics P580 2020

GeForce MX250 2423
+20%

GeForce MX250 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics P580 by 20% in Passmark.

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

18−20

−27.8%

23
+27.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10

−55.6%

14
+55.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −90%	19 +90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Battlefield 5	16−18 −50%	24 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −35.3%	23 +35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −22.2%	11 +22.2%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −72.7%	19 +72.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −75%	21 +75%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −82.4%	31 +82.4%
Hitman 3	12−14 −25%	14−16 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −30%	13 +30%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −40%	14 +40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −38.5%	18 +38.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −30%	13 +30%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Battlefield 5	16−18 −18.8%	19 +18.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +6.3%	16 −6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −54.5%	17 +54.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −50%	18 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −41.2%	24 +41.2%
Hitman 3	12−14 +71.4%	7 −71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +66.7%	6 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +0%	7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +25%	8 −25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +18.2%	11 −18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −90.9%	21 +90.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +42.9%	7 −42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +14.3%	14 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −45.5%	16 +45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +6.3%	16 −6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −9.1%	12 +9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Hitman 3	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Battlefield 5	0−1	2−3
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	1−2

This is how Iris Pro Graphics P580 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX250 is 27.8% faster than Iris Pro Graphics P580 in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 71.4% faster than the GeForce MX250.
in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 400% faster than the Iris Pro Graphics P580.

All in all, in popular games: