Quadro K3100M vs Iris Pro Graphics P580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics P580 with Quadro K3100M, including specs and performance data.
K3100M outperforms Pro Graphics P580 by a moderate 13% 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 | 679 | 653 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 24.73 | 5.57 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT4e | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 75.60 | 45.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.21 TFLOPS | 1.084 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 9 | 32 |
| TMUs | 72 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 102.4 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 |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 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) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | + |
| 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 | 30−35
−16.7%
| 35
+16.7%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−25%
| 15
+25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 57.11 |
| 4K | no data | 133.27 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−13.8%
|
30−35
+13.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−6.6%
|
65−70
+6.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−10.7%
|
90−95
+10.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−9.5%
|
45−50
+9.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−13.8%
|
30−35
+13.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−6.6%
|
65−70
+6.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−9.5%
|
45−50
+9.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+100%
|
7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−6.6%
|
65−70
+6.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−13.8%
|
30−35
+13.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−13.5%
|
40−45
+13.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−2.8%
|
35−40
+2.8%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−15.1%
|
60−65
+15.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−400%
|
5
+400%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−16.7%
|
27−30
+16.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Pro Graphics P580 and K3100M compete in popular games:
- K3100M is 17% faster in 1080p
- K3100M is 25% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics P580 is 100% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the K3100M is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics P580 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- K3100M performs better in 57 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.83 | 5.44 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics P580 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
K3100M, on the other hand, has a 12.6% higher aggregate performance score.
The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics P580 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics P580 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
