Intel Arc A380 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive victory for the Intel Arc A380 across every shared benchmark test. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Arc A380 scores 38,224 points, which is 320.9% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's 9,082 points. This is not a marginal improvement; the Arc A380 delivers more than four times the raw compute performance in this API.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The Arc A380 records 36,736 points against the Iris Pro's 5,258 points, a delta of 598.7%. That means the Arc A380 outperforms its older counterpart by nearly seven times in Vulkan workloads. The magnitude of this gap underscores the generational leap between the two architectures.

The wins tally is unsurprising: the Arc A380 takes both head-to-head tests, leaving the Iris Pro P580 without a single recorded victory. The database shows zero benchmark wins for the Iris Pro, and the margin of defeat is so large that no scenario in the recorded data flips the result. The average benchmark score for the Arc A380 is 8,558, while the Iris Pro sits at 7,170, a difference of roughly 19.4% in the aggregate.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies where each card stands. The Arc A380's average score places it 0.4% behind the AMD FirePro W5170M (8,595) and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 by 1.2% and the AMD Radeon 880M by 1.4%. The Iris Pro P580, meanwhile, sits in a cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171, a 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157, a 0.2% delta). It trails the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile by 0.5% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 by 0.7%. The percentile data reinforces this: the Arc A380 ranks in the 44th percentile among all GPUs, while the Iris Pro sits in the 39th percentile.

In practical terms, the Arc A380's 320.9% lead in OpenCL means tasks that are compute-bound, such as physics simulations or data processing, will complete in a fraction of the time. The 598.7% lead in Vulkan is even more significant for modern gaming and graphics workloads, as Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales with the underlying hardware's capabilities. The Iris Pro's scores suggest it is only suitable for legacy or light workloads, whereas the Arc A380 can handle contemporary demands.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design eras. The Intel Arc A380 uses the DG2-128 chip built on the Xe-HPG architecture, part of the Alchemist generation (Arc 3). It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 157 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, by contrast, uses the Skylake GT4e chip on the Generation 9.0 architecture, belonging to the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation. It is built on Intel's 14 nm+ process, and the database lists no transistor count, die size, or density figures for it.

The core counts diverge sharply. The Arc A380 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It also includes 8 ray tracing cores. The Iris Pro P580 has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and only 9 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The texture rate tells a mixed story: the Arc A380 achieves 131.2 GTexel/s, while the Iris Pro reaches 72.00 GTexel/s, so the Arc leads in texture throughput by a wide margin. The pixel rate is even more lopsided: the Arc A380 outputs 65.60 GPixel/s versus the Iris Pro's 9.000 GPixel/s, a 7.3x difference in pixel fill.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Arc A380 has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz, with memory clocked at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro starts at a low 350 MHz base and boosts to 1000 MHz. Memory configuration is a fundamental split: the Arc A380 has 6 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, which means its performance is tied to the host system's RAM and memory controller.

The feature sets reflect their respective generations. The Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Arc A380 also has hardware ray tracing capabilities, which the Iris Pro lacks entirely. The Arc A380's FP32 throughput is 4.198 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1). The Iris Pro manages only 1,152.0 GFLOPS in FP32 and 2.304 TFLOPS in FP16 (2:1). The FP32 gap is roughly 3.6x in favor of the Arc A380.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has an average benchmark score of 8,558, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 averages 7,170. The Arc A380 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 44 versus the Iris Pro's 39.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Arc A380 scores 36,736 points versus the Iris Pro's 5,258 points. That is a 598.7% difference, meaning the Arc A380 is nearly seven times faster in this specific workload.

Q: Does the Iris Pro P580 have any benchmark win over the Arc A380?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Iris Pro P580 across all shared tests. The Arc A380 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Arc A380 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro P580 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has 8 ray tracing cores. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has none.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The Arc A380 has a TDP of 75 W and requires a 250 W suggested power supply with a single 8-pin connector. The Iris Pro P580 has a TDP of 15 W and is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors or suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc A380 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 |

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

| Chip | DG2-128 | Skylake GT4e |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | Generation 9.0 |

| Generation | Alchemist (Arc 3) | HD Graphics-W (Skylake) |

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

| Transistors | 7,200 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 157 mm² | Not listed |

| Transistor Density | 45.9M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 186.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 576 |

| TMUs | 64 | 72 |

| ROPs | 32 | 9 |

| RT Cores | 8 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 65.60 GPixel/s | 9.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 131.2 GTexel/s | 72.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.198 TFLOPS | 1,152.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2022-06-13 | 2015-08-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data points to a one-sided comparison. The Intel Arc A380 outperforms the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 in every measurable category: compute, graphics, memory, and features. The average benchmark score gap of 8,558 versus 7,170 is substantial, and the individual test deltas of 320.9% in OpenCL and 598.7% in Vulkan leave no room for ambiguity.

The Arc A380 is the clear choice for anyone who needs discrete graphics performance. It has dedicated GDDR6 memory, ray tracing capabilities, a modern Xe-HPG architecture, and a 6 nm process that enables high clock speeds and efficiency. The Iris Pro P580, with its 14 nm+ process, shared system memory, and lack of ray tracing, is a legacy integrated solution that cannot compete on any level recorded in the database.

The Iris Pro P580's only advantage is its 15 W TDP, which is 60 W lower than the Arc A380's 75 W. This makes it suitable for low-power systems where integrated graphics are the only option. However, the performance penalty is severe: the Arc A380 delivers 3.6x higher FP32 throughput and 7.3x higher pixel rate. For any workload that stresses the GPU, the Arc A380 wins decisively.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A380 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in Vulkan workloads, where its 598.7% lead over the Iris Pro indicates a massive advantage in modern, low-overhead graphics APIs. The 8 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature the Iris Pro cannot offer at all. The dedicated 6 GB GDDR6 memory with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth ensures consistent performance without relying on system RAM, making it suitable for gaming, 3D rendering, and compute tasks. The 4.198 TFLOPS FP32 throughput positions it for general-purpose GPU computing that requires sustained high throughput.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 finds its niche only in constrained environments. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or embedded systems where power draw is critical. The system shared memory configuration eliminates the need for separate VRAM, simplifying system design and reducing cost. Its 576 shading units and 72 TMUs are modest but functional for basic 2D output, video playback, and light 3D acceleration. The 9 ROPs limit pixel fill, but for non-gaming tasks, the Iris Pro can handle everyday desktop workloads.

In summary, the Arc A380 is the only viable choice for demanding graphics tasks. The Iris Pro P580 is a low-power integrated option that trades all performance for minimal energy use. The recorded data shows no scenario where the Iris Pro matches or exceeds the Arc A380 in raw performance. Users who prioritize GPU capability should select the Arc A380; users who prioritize absolute minimum power consumption and have no discrete graphics needs might consider the Iris Pro, but they must accept a 320.9% to 598.7% performance deficit.