AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions, yet they deliver nearly identical average benchmark scores. The AMD part averages 7203 points against Intel’s 7170, a margin of just 0.5% that places both at the 39th percentile of all GPUs. This near-parity masks a dramatic split in workload behavior: each GPU decisively wins one of the two primary benchmark suites, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the target application. The data shows a classic architectural trade-off between raw compute throughput and driver-optimized API performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers a clear victory for Intel. The Iris Pro Graphics P580 scores 9082 points, while the Vega 8 Mobile manages 7435 points. That is an 18.1% deficit for AMD, a substantial gap in a synthetic compute workload. Intel’s advantage here likely stems from its 576 shading units and 72 texture mapping units, which outnumber AMD’s 512 shaders and 32 TMUs. The P580 also posts a higher pixel rate at 9.000 GPixel/s versus 8.808 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s is more than double AMD’s 35.23 GTexel/s. In OpenCL, the Intel part operates as the clear performance leader, with its nearest rival comparison confirming its standing: the P580 sits 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7157 points) and 0.7% behind the GeForce GTX 750 (7222 points).

The Vulkan benchmark flips the script entirely. Here, AMD’s Vega 8 Mobile scores 6970 points against Intel’s 5258 points, a 32.6% advantage for AMD. This is a massive swing, larger in percentage terms than Intel’s OpenCL win. The AMD architecture, built on GCN 5.0, demonstrates superior performance under the Vulkan API, which likely benefits from AMD’s explicit multi-threading and lower-level hardware access. In this test, the Vega 8 Mobile’s nearest rival data shows it trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222 points) by only 3.5% and leading the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171 points) by 2.8%, despite those discrete cards having dedicated memory. The 32.6% delta between the two IGPs in Vulkan is the single largest performance gap in this comparison, dwarfing the 18.1% OpenCL difference.

When aggregating the two benchmark results, the average scores converge. AMD’s average of 7203 points comes from a 7435 OpenCL and 6970 Vulkan pair, while Intel’s 7170 average results from a 9082 OpenCL and 5258 Vulkan pair. The standard deviation of these results is far higher for Intel, indicating less consistent performance across different APIs. AMD’s scores are tightly clustered, with only a 465-point spread, whereas Intel’s spread is 3824 points. This suggests that AMD offers more predictable performance, while Intel is a high-variance option that excels in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads but struggles in Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is the superior choice for any application that relies on OpenCL compute acceleration. Its 9082-point score in that benchmark is 18.1% ahead of AMD, and its 72 TMUs provide substantial texture throughput that benefits image processing and physics simulations. The P580’s 15 W TDP also makes it a lower-power option, though it operates at a 350 MHz base clock and 1000 MHz boost, compared to AMD’s 300 MHz base and 1101 MHz boost. For users running OpenCL-based productivity tools, video encoders, or scientific workloads, the Intel part is the data-backed winner.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile dominates the Vulkan landscape. Its 6970-point score represents a 32.6% lead over Intel, making it the clear pick for modern gaming APIs and Vulkan-native applications. The Vega 8 Mobile’s higher boost clock of 1101 MHz, combined with its GCN 5.0 architecture, delivers the kind of low-level performance that Vulkan rewards. AMD also offers a higher transistor count at 4,940 million on a 210 mm² die, while Intel does not disclose its transistor count or die size in the data. For any workload targeting Vulkan — whether that is game emulation, Vulkan-based renderers, or newer game titles — the AMD part is decisively faster.

In terms of overall average performance, the two are effectively tied, with AMD holding a 0.5% edge. However, the nature of that edge matters. AMD’s average is built on balanced performance across two APIs, while Intel’s average is inflated by a single dominant OpenCL result. The data suggests that if a user cannot guarantee which API their software will use, AMD provides the safer bet due to lower variance. Conversely, if the software stack is known and OpenCL-heavy, Intel’s advantage is too large to ignore.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile has a higher average score of 7203 points, compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580’s 7170 points, a difference of 0.5%.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any single benchmark?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile scores 6970 points versus Intel’s 5258 points, giving AMD a 32.6% advantage.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 win?

A: Intel wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 9082 points against AMD’s 7435 points, an 18.1% lead.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile trails the GTX 750 by 0.3% in average score, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 trails it by 0.7%. The GTX 750 averages 7222 points.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile has a TDP of 25 W, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has a TDP of 15 W, making Intel the lower-power option.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, according to the data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification, starting with their process nodes. AMD uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while Intel uses a 14 nm+ process from its own foundry. The transistor counts also diverge significantly: AMD packs 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.5M per mm². Intel does not report transistor count, die size, or density in the data. Clock speeds differ as well, with AMD running a 300 MHz base and 1101 MHz boost, while Intel runs a 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost.

The compute units show a clear split in design philosophy. AMD deploys 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while Intel counters with 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 9 ROPs. This gives Intel a 12.5% advantage in shader count and a 125% advantage in TMUs, explaining its strong texture throughput. The pixel rates are close — 8.808 GPixel/s for AMD versus 9.000 GPixel/s for Intel — but the texture rates are not: 35.23 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is nearly identical, with AMD at 1,127.4 GFLOPS and Intel at 1,152.0 GFLOPS, a difference of just 2.2%. FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with AMD at 2.255 TFLOPS and Intel at 2.304 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio.

Power and interface specifications also differ. AMD’s TDP is 25 W, while Intel’s is 15 W. Both use a system-shared memory configuration with system-dependent bandwidth. AMD connects via an IGP bus interface, while Intel uses a Ring Bus. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for AMD and motherboard dependent for Intel. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. AMD’s Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is built on GCN 5.0, using the Raven-M chip, and belongs to the Vega IGP generation from Raven Ridge-M. Intel’s Iris Pro Graphics P580 is built on Generation 9.0, using the Skylake GT4e chip, and belongs to the HD Graphics-W generation from Skylake. These are completely different design lineages, which explains the divergent benchmark behavior.

AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture is designed for compute-heavy workloads, with a focus on parallel execution and high clock speeds. Its 1101 MHz boost clock is 10.1% higher than Intel’s 1000 MHz, and its transistor count of 4,940 million is substantial for an integrated part. The 25 W TDP reflects a more aggressive power envelope, allowing higher sustained clocks. AMD’s predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP, and its successor is Navi II IGP, showing a clear evolution path within AMD’s integrated graphics line.

Intel’s Generation 9.0 architecture, by contrast, emphasizes texturing throughput. Its 72 TMUs are a massive resource for an IGP, enabling the 72.00 GTexel/s rate that doubles AMD’s output. The 350 MHz base clock is higher than AMD’s 300 MHz, but the 1000 MHz boost is lower, suggesting Intel relies on wider execution rather than higher frequencies. Intel’s 15 W TDP is 40% lower than AMD’s, making it the more power-efficient option. The Ring Bus interface indicates tight integration with the CPU, typical of Intel’s HD Graphics-W line. Intel does not list a predecessor or successor for this part, and its production status is end-of-life, as is AMD’s. Both support identical API levels, but their internal architectures are optimized for different strengths — AMD for Vulkan and Intel for OpenCL.