Intel Arc A310 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

Intel Arc A310 decisively outperforms Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 in every measurable head-to-head benchmark, with the gap ranging from 237% to 450.9% depending on the API. The Arc A310 is a discrete GPU built on modern Xe-HPG architecture, while the P580 is a 2015-era integrated graphics solution; the data reflects a generational chasm rather than a close contest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available comparison points—Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan—both show overwhelming victories for the Intel Arc A310. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A310 scores 30,607 against the P580’s 9,082, a delta of 237%. This is not a marginal edge; the Arc A310 delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this API. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 28,964 versus 5,258, a 450.9% advantage. That means the Arc A310 is roughly 5.5 times faster in Vulkan, a direct indicator of modern driver overhead and hardware feature support working in its favor.

Contextualizing these scores against the nearest rivals clarifies their meaning. The Arc A310’s average benchmark score is 7,550, placing it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557) and 0.4% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580). It sits 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472) and 1.4% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447). The P580, by contrast, averages 7,170, matching the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171) within 0% and trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157) by only 0.2%. The P580 is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203) and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222). In percentile terms, both GPUs sit near the bottom of the database: the Arc A310 is in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the P580 is in the 39th. The data shows two low-end performers, but the Arc A310 is the faster low-end performer by a wide margin.

The wins tally is 2–0 in favor of the Arc A310, but the magnitude of each win is what matters. A 237% lead in OpenCL suggests the Arc A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory are doing heavy lifting, whereas the P580’s 1,152.0 GFLOPS FP32 and system-shared memory bottleneck its compute. The Vulkan delta of 450.9% underscores API-level advantages: the Arc A310 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P580 is limited to Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1). Those feature-set differences translate directly into real-world performance gaps.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins in every category where both have data. Its strongest advantage is in Vulkan, where the 450.9% delta indicates that modern geometry processing, mesh shaders, and ray tracing (via 6 RT cores) are not just present but functional. The OpenCL win at 237% reflects its compute-oriented design: 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs working in tandem with 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For users running OpenCL workloads—scientific computing, video encoding, or GPU-accelerated filters—the Arc A310 is the only viable choice between these two.

The P580’s only theoretical wins are in areas where the fact pack provides no head-to-head numbers. Its 72 TMUs outnumber the Arc A310’s 32, giving it a higher texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. That could favor texture-bound legacy applications, but no benchmark data confirms this. Its 9 ROPs are fewer than the Arc A310’s 16, and its pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s is less than a third of the Arc A310’s 28.00 GPixel/s. The P580 also runs at a 15 W TDP versus 30 W, making it more power-efficient by design, but the Arc A310’s higher power budget enables its superior performance. For gaming, compute, or any modern API workload, the Arc A310 wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is stark. The Arc A310 uses the DG2-128 chip built on TSMC’s 6 nm process, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die. The P580 uses the Skylake GT4e chip on Intel’s 14 nm+ process, with no transistor or die size data available. The process node difference alone—6 nm versus 14 nm+—explains much of the efficiency and clock speed disparity. The Arc A310 runs at a flat 1750 MHz base and boost, while the P580 scales from 350 MHz base to 1000 MHz boost. That 75% higher boost clock, combined with a smaller process, gives the Arc A310 a massive throughput advantage.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The Arc A310 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 124.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P580 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, which means it competes with the CPU for memory access and suffers from latency and throughput penalties. The Arc A310’s memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the P580’s memory speed is not specified beyond “System Shared.” For any data-intensive workload, dedicated VRAM is a decisive advantage.

Compute resources differ in configuration. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores. The P580 has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 9 ROPs, with no RT cores. The Arc A310’s FP32 throughput is 2.688 TFLOPS, more than double the P580’s 1,152.0 GFLOPS. FP16 performance is 5.376 TFLOPS for the Arc A310 versus 2.304 TFLOPS for the P580, both at a 2:1 ratio. The Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P580 is capped at DirectX 12 (12_1)—that difference excludes the P580 from ray tracing and mesh shader features. The Arc A310 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the P580’s 1.3, and both support OpenGL 4.6.

The bus interface and power delivery are equally divergent. The Arc A310 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 200 W suggested PSU. The P580 uses a Ring Bus interface with a 15 W TDP, drawing power directly from the motherboard. The Arc A310 is a single-slot discrete card with four mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs; the P580 is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs. The Arc A310 was released in October 2022, while the P580 launched in August 2015—a seven-year gap that explains the feature and performance divergence.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc A310 delivers 2.688 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.376 TFLOPS FP16, versus the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580’s 1,152.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 2.304 TFLOPS FP16. The Arc A310 is more than 2x faster in both.

Q: Can the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 handle ray tracing?

A: No. The P580 has no RT cores, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support excludes ray tracing features. The Intel Arc A310 has 6 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Arc A310 has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 124.0 GB/s bandwidth. The P580 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, which is slower and shares bandwidth with the CPU.

Q: What is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: The Arc A310 scores 28,964 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the P580’s 5,258, a 450.9% advantage for the Arc A310.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in average benchmark scores?

A: The Arc A310 averages 7,550 and sits in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The P580 averages 7,170 and sits in the 39th percentile. The Arc A310 is faster, but both are near the bottom of the performance distribution.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The P580 has a 15 W TDP versus the Arc A310’s 30 W TDP. However, the Arc A310’s performance per watt is far higher given its 237–450.9% benchmark leads.

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A310 is the definitive choice for any workload that benefits from dedicated graphics memory, modern API support, or raw compute throughput. Its 237% OpenCL lead and 450.9% Vulkan lead over the P580 are not close calls; they are decisive. The Arc A310’s 2.688 TFLOPS FP32, 124.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 6 RT cores make it suitable for entry-level gaming, GPU-accelerated compute, and content creation. The P580, with its 1,152.0 GFLOPS FP32 and system-shared memory, is only viable for basic desktop tasks or legacy applications that cannot use the Arc A310’s newer features.

For users constrained to a 15 W TDP or requiring an integrated solution, the P580 has a niche. Its 72 TMUs and 72.00 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the Arc A310’s 32 TMUs and 56.00 GTexel/s, which could benefit texture-heavy legacy titles—but no benchmark confirms this. The P580’s 39th percentile standing, matching the GeForce GTX 560 SE, indicates it is a budget-level part from a bygone era. The Arc A310, despite being end-of-life itself, outperforms rivals like the GTX 1650 by 1% and sits within 0.4% of the Radeon Pro WX 3100. Pick the Arc A310 for performance; pick the P580 only if your system mandates integrated graphics or a 15 W power envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A310 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | DG2-128 | Skylake GT4e |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Generation 9.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm+ (Intel) |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | 1750 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1750 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory | 4 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 124.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 768 | 576 |

| TMUs | 32 | 72 |

| ROPs | 16 | 9 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 28.00 GPixel/s | 9.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 56.00 GTexel/s | 72.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.688 TFLOPS | 1,152.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.376 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2022-10-11 | 2015-08-31 |