AMD Radeon R7 250 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a decisive result: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 scores 9082 against the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7557. That is a 16.8% advantage for Intel in raw compute throughput. The margin is substantial, not a statistical tie. For context, the R7 250’s nearest rivals in the database — the Intel Arc A310 at 7550 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7580 — sit within a fraction of a percent of its score, meaning the R7 250 is firmly anchored in its performance tier. The Iris Pro P580, by contrast, sits alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203), but its OpenCL result pulls well ahead of that cluster. The delta is real, but it is importantly the P580’s average benchmark score across all tests is 7170, dragged down by its Vulkan result of 5258. So while the OpenCL head-to-head shows a clear Intel win, the P580’s overall profile is more uneven — a point of curiosity given its strong OpenCL showing.

What does the 16.8% delta mean in practical terms? At this performance level, it separates playable from borderline in many lighter workloads. The R7 250’s OpenCL score of 7557 places it just above the GeForce GTX 1650 (7472) and the Radeon HD 8850M (7447), suggesting it can handle modest compute tasks without embarrassment. Yet the P580’s 9082 pushes it into territory where the R7 250 cannot follow. The data does not show a single test where the R7 250 wins; the wins column is 0 for the AMD part and 1 for Intel. That is a clean sweep, albeit from a limited sample. The absence of a Vulkan result for the R7 250 is notable — the P580 has one (5258), but the R7 250 either was not tested or did not support the API at test time. That asymmetry limits direct comparison, but the OpenCL gap alone tells the primary story: Intel’s integrated solution outperforms AMD’s discrete entry-level card in the one metric both share.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 scores 9082 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, giving Intel a 16.8% lead.

Q: How does the Radeon R7 250 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 250’s average score of 7557 places it within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A310 (7550) and 0.3% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7580). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472) by 1.1%.

Q: What is the Intel Iris Pro P580’s Vulkan score, and does the R7 250 have one?

A: The P580 scores 5258 in Geekbench Vulkan. The R7 250 has no Vulkan benchmark listed in the data, so no direct comparison is possible for that API.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The R7 250, built on a 28 nm process, has a transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per mm². The P580’s process node is 14 nm+, but its transistor count and die size are not listed, so density cannot be calculated.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the P580 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, though the P580 lists Vulkan 1.3 versus the R7 250’s 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The R7 250 has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, which is higher than the P580’s 9.000 GPixel/s. However, the P580 has a much higher texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s versus the R7 250’s 29.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two parts is fundamental. The R7 250 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Cape Verde chip, part of the Volcanic Islands generation (R7 200). It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors packed into a 123 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The P580, by contrast, is Intel’s Generation 9.0 architecture on the Skylake GT4e chip, part of the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation. It uses a 14 nm+ process at Intel’s own foundry, but the data lists no transistor count or die size — a notable gap. The process node difference alone suggests the Intel part is denser per area, but without numbers, that remains an inference, not a fact.

The compute resources tell a more complex story. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P580 has more shading units (576) and more than double the TMUs (72), but only 9 ROPs. That configaration is revealing: the Intel part is built for texture-heavy and shader-heavy work, while the AMD part leans on fewer, wider units. The R7 250’s FP32 throughput is 947.2 GFLOPS, while the P580 reaches 1,152.0 GFLOPS — a 21.6% advantage. Additionally, the P580 supports FP16 at 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the R7 250 lacks entirely. The R7 250’s memory subsystem uses dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, while the P580 uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." That is a critical difference: the AMD card has its own VRAM, the Intel part borrows from system RAM, which can bottleneck performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply across nearly every specification. The R7 250 is a discrete card with a 55 W TDP, single-slot design, and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W PSU. The P580 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP — a 40 W gap — and no slot width or power connector specifications, as it shares the motherboard’s power delivery. The R7 250 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the P580 uses a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs differ: the R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the P580’s outputs are "Motherboard Dependent." The R7 250 has a physical length of 168 mm (6.6 inches); the P580 has no dimensions, being an on-package solution. Clock speeds also differ: the R7 250 lists only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), with no base or boost clocks, while the P580 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The R7 250’s memory is fixed at 1024 MB DDR3, whereas the P580’s memory size, type, and bus width are all "System Shared."

Release timing and status are also distinct. The R7 250 launched on 2013-10-07, while the P580 launched on 2015-08-31. Both are end-of-life. The R7 250 has a predecessor (Sea Islands) and successor (Pirate Islands) noted; the P580 has neither listed. In terms of API support, the P580 has a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.3 vs 1.2.170). The R7 250’s texture rate is 29.60 GTexel/s versus the P580’s 72.00 GTexel/s, but the R7 250’s pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s exceeds the P580’s 9.000 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro P580 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it also wins on raw compute metrics: FP32 throughput (1,152.0 GFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS), FP16 support (2.304 TFLOPS, absent on the R7 250), texture fill rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs 29.60 GTexel/s), and shading unit count (576 vs 512). Its DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 support are more modern than the R7 250’s 11_1 and 1.2.170. For workloads that stress shader compute, texture sampling, or modern API features, the P580 is the clear choice. Its lower TDP (15 W vs 55 W) also makes it the obvious pick for power-constrained or fanless systems.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins on memory architecture and pixel throughput. Its dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth is a fixed, predictable resource, unlike the P580’s system-shared memory, which depends on the host system’s RAM speed and allocation. The R7 250’s pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s is 64% higher than the P580’s 9.000 GPixel/s, which matters for fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution 2D compositing or light 3D scenes with heavy overdraw. Its transistor count of 1,500 million and die size of 123 mm² are documented, offering a concrete comparison point that the P580 lacks. For systems where a discrete card is preferred — for upgradeability, dedicated VRAM, or avoiding shared memory contention — the R7 250 has structural advantages that benchmark scores alone do not capture.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for compute-heavy tasks: the Intel Iris Pro P580 is the stronger GPU, delivering 16.8% higher OpenCL performance than the R7 250. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput, texture rate, and shader count all favor Intel. The P580 also has a lower TDP (15 W vs 55 W), making it more efficient on paper. However, the R7 250 counters with a higher pixel rate, dedicated memory, and a documented physical footprint — factors that matter for specific use cases like high-resolution 2D work or systems needing predictable memory bandwidth. The R7 250’s nearest rivals cluster tightly around its score, suggesting it sits in a crowded, competitive tier, while the P580’s OpenCL result pushes it above its average benchmark of 7170, indicating variance across workloads. The P580’s Vulkan score of 5258 pulls its average down, so in Vulkan-specific scenarios, the gap may narrow or reverse — but no Vulkan data exists for the R7 250 to confirm that. For users prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, and power efficiency, the P580 is the data-backed choice. For users needing discrete memory, higher pixel fill rate, or a card that can be swapped between systems, the R7 250 holds its own despite losing the single direct benchmark. The verdict is conditional: Intel wins the compute race outright, but AMD’s part remains viable for rasterization-focused workloads where its pixel rate and fixed VRAM provide tangible benefits.