Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Iris Pro Graphics P580

Place in the ranking	622	532
Place by popularity	not in top-100	73
Power efficiency	24.18	18.65
Architecture	Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	Skylake GT4e	Tiger Lake Xe
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 September 2015 (9 years ago)	15 August 2020 (4 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	80
Core clock speed	350 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	1350 MHz
Number of transistors	189 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	75.60	no data
Floating-point processing power	1.21 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).

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	no data
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

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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12_1
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	12−14 −58.3%	19 +58.3%
1440p	6−7 −66.7%	10 +66.7%
4K	10−12 −50%	15 +50%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +0%	11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −27.3%	14 +27.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −50%	24−27 +50%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −9.1%	12 +9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −9.1%	12 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −36.4%	30 +36.4%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 −40%	14 +40%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −108%	27 +108%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%
Valorant	16−18 −12.5%	18 +12.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −50%	24−27 +50%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +10%	10 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +120%	5 −120%
Dota 2	16−18 −29.4%	22 +29.4%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −4%	26 +4%
Fortnite	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −9.1%	24 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +30.8%	13 −30.8%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −30.8%	17 +30.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −38.6%	60−65 +38.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +167%	6 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −35.3%	21−24 +35.3%
Valorant	16−18 +14.3%	14 −14.3%
World of Tanks	85−90 −35.3%	110−120 +35.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −50%	24−27 +50%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +175%	4 −175%
Dota 2	16−18 −112%	36 +112%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −32%	30−35 +32%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +10%	20 −10%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 +11.1%	9 −11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −38.6%	60−65 +38.6%
Valorant	16−18 −68.8%	27−30 +68.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	5−6 −20%	6 +20%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 −20%	6 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
World of Tanks	35−40 −44.7%	55−60 +44.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +417%	6 −417%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −45.5%	16−18 +45.5%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −77.8%	16 +77.8%
Forza Horizon 5	7−8 −57.1%	10−12 +57.1%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −25%	10 +25%
Valorant	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −46.7%	21−24 +46.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.3%	16 −6.3%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Fortnite	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Valorant	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

This is how Iris Pro Graphics P580 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 58% faster in 1080p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 67% faster in 1440p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 50% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 417% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Pro Graphics P580 is ahead in 11 tests (17%)
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 49 tests (77%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.26	7.57
Recency	1 September 2015	15 August 2020
Chip lithography	14 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	28 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics P580 has 86.7% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 43.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics P580 in performance tests.

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