AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 and AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions, but they target very different eras of mobile computing. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Intel part holding a significant lead in the only shared benchmark, despite the AMD part being newer and more power-efficient. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and use-case scenarios based strictly on the provided specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is decisively won by the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580. The Intel GPU scores 9082, while the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile scores 6476. This translates to a 40.2% advantage for the Intel part, which is a substantial margin in real-world compute workloads. This is not a close contest; the Intel IGP outperforms the AMD part by nearly half again its own score.

Looking at the broader context, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's average benchmark score of 7170 places it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, 0% delta) and the GeForce GTX 970 (7157, 0.2% delta), indicating it trades blows with older discrete desktop graphics cards. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile's average score of 6476 puts it in the 37th percentile, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (6481, -0.1% delta). This shows that while the Intel part is competing with older mid-range discrete GPUs, the AMD part is positioned closer to older entry-level or mobile discrete solutions.

The disparity is stark. The Intel part's OpenCL score is not just higher; it is in a different performance tier. The AMD Vega 10 Mobile's score is closer to its own rivals, like the GeForce GT 555M (6493, -0.3% delta), which are significantly older and less capable. When comparing the two head-to-head, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is the unequivocal winner in raw compute performance, delivering a 40.2% higher score than the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile. This suggests that for any task leveraging OpenCL, the Intel IGP would provide a noticeably smoother and faster experience.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is straightforward for performance-focused users. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins the only head-to-head benchmark and has a higher average benchmark score (7170 vs 6476). It also posts a higher percentile ranking (39th vs 37th). If your priority is maximum compute performance for tasks like OpenCL-accelerated applications, the Intel part is the only logical choice based on these results.

However, the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile has its own merits that are not captured in the compute score. Its TDP is 10 W compared to Intel's 15 W, making it significantly more power-efficient. For a mobile device, this could translate to longer battery life and less heat generation. The AMD part also has a higher boost clock (1301 MHz vs 1000 MHz) and more shading units (640 vs 576), although these advantages do not materialize into better benchmark results. The Intel part compensates with more TMUs (72 vs 40) and a higher texture fill rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs 52.04 GTexel/s), which likely contributes to its superior compute showing.

Ultimately, the verdict is split. Users who need raw performance should choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580. Users who prioritize efficiency and are willing to accept lower compute performance in exchange for a lower power draw should consider the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is significantly faster, scoring 9082 compared to the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile's 6476, a 40.2% difference.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile have any performance advantage?

A: Based on the benchmark data, no. It loses the only shared test (Geekbench OpenCL) and has a lower average benchmark score (6476 vs 7170).

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile has a higher boost clock of 1301 MHz, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 boosts to 1000 MHz.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to discrete graphics cards?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's average score (7170) is near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171). The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile's average score (6476) is near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493).

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile has a lower TDP of 10 W, compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's 15 W.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is in the 37th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification, reflecting their different design goals. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is built on a 14 nm+ process by Intel, while the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The AMD chip has a larger die at 210 mm² and contains 4,940 million transistors, with a density of 23.5M / mm²; Intel does not list these details.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz. The AMD part starts lower at 300 MHz but boosts much higher to 1301 MHz. The core configurations are also different: Intel has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 9 ROPs, while AMD has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

These configurations lead to different calculated rates. The Intel part has a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s. The AMD part has a higher pixel rate of 10.41 GPixel/s but a lower texture rate of 52.04 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the AMD part leads with 1.665 TFLOPS (FP32) and 3.331 TFLOPS (FP16), while the Intel part delivers 1,152.0 GFLOPS (FP32) and 2.304 TFLOPS (FP16). The TDP also differs, with Intel at 15 W and AMD at 10 W.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is based on the Skylake GT4e chip and uses the Generation 9.0 architecture, specifically from the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation. The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is built on the Raven-M chip and uses the GCN 5.0 architecture from the Vega IGP (Raven Ridge-M) generation.

The process nodes are nearly identical (both 14 nm-class), but the foundries differ: Intel for the Iris Pro and GlobalFoundries for the Vega. The AMD part has a defined predecessor (GCN 3.0 IGP) and successor (Navi II IGP), while the Intel part's lineage is not listed. The bus interfaces also differ: Intel uses a Ring Bus, while AMD uses a standard IGP interface.

Both support the same modern API levels: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The memory subsystem is identical in description for both, being System Shared with System Dependent bandwidth. The display outputs are also dependent on the host device, with Intel's being Motherboard Dependent and AMD's being Portable Device Dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins in raw compute performance. Its 40.2% lead in OpenCL makes it the clear choice for any application that can leverage GPU compute, such as video encoding, rendering, or data processing. Its higher texture rate (72.00 GTexel/s vs 52.04 GTexel/s) suggests it can handle texture-heavy workloads more efficiently. The higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking reinforce this as the performance-oriented option.

The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile wins in efficiency and specifications on paper. Its 10 W TDP versus Intel's 15 W makes it a better fit for ultra-portable devices where battery life is paramount. It also boasts a higher boost clock (1301 MHz vs 1000 MHz), more shading units (640 vs 576), and higher FP32 throughput (1.665 TFLOPS vs 1.152 TFLOPS). In scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint and compute performance is secondary, the AMD part is the better engineering choice. However, the benchmark data shows that its theoretical advantages do not translate to superior OpenCL performance.