Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data offers a single decisive benchmark comparison between these two graphics solutions: Geekbench OpenCL. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 delivers a score of 9,082, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 manages 7,289. This represents a 19.7% advantage for the Intel part in raw compute throughput, a substantial margin that frames the entire competitive dynamic between these products.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000’s average benchmark score of 7,289 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580’s average score of 7,170 puts it in the 39th percentile — yet these averages obscure the OpenCL head-to-head, where Intel wins outright. The discrepancy is telling: the Intel part’s average is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 5,258, a test the Quadro does not have data for. When comparing only the shared benchmark, Intel wins by nearly 20 points in percentage terms.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the Quadro 5000 sits just 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222) and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203). The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, meanwhile, is 0.7% behind the GTX 750 and 0.5% behind the Vega 8 Mobile in its average score. In the OpenCL test, however, the Intel part’s 9,082 would place it far above any of these rivals — but the average score tells the more complete story of mixed workload performance.

The single head-to-head result shows the Intel solution outperforming in the one metric that both products share, and the margin is significant. The Quadro’s OpenCL score of 7,289 is only 1.7% above the Intel part’s average score of 7,170, meaning the Quadro’s best available benchmark result is barely better than the Intel part’s mixed-workload average. When the Intel part runs OpenCL specifically, it leaps ahead by 19.7%.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two products is vast. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip built on Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 uses the Skylake GT4e chip on Intel’s Generation 9.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm+ process at Intel’s own foundry. This process node difference — 40 nm versus 14 nm+ — explains much of the power and density gap between them.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of different design philosophies. The Quadro 5000 packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel part does not disclose its transistor count, die size, or density, but its integrated nature on a 14 nm+ process implies a fundamentally different approach. The Fermi architecture was designed as a discrete, high-power GPU, while the Intel part is built into a processor package as an IGP.

Memory configurations differ dramatically. The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth — no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width. The Quadro’s memory clock runs at 750 MHz, translating to 3 Gbps effective, while the Intel part’s memory clock is simply listed as "System Shared."

The compute units reveal a different balance of resources. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 40 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Intel part has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, but only 9 ROPs. This is a striking contrast: the Intel part has 64% more shading units and 64% more TMUs, but the Quadro has 344% more ROPs. The pixel rates reflect this: the Quadro achieves 11.29 GPixel/s, while the Intel part manages 9.000 GPixel/s — the Quadro wins pixel throughput despite fewer shaders.

Texture rates, however, go decisively to Intel: 72.00 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s for the Quadro. Floating-point performance also favors Intel: 1,152.0 GFLOPS (FP32) versus 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a 59% advantage. The Intel part also lists FP16 performance of 2.304 TFLOPS, a capability the Quadro does not have data for.

API support shows generational difference. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro’s bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. Power consumption is starkly different: the Quadro draws 152 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU, while the Intel part is rated at 15 W TDP with no PSU requirement.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins the only shared benchmark — OpenCL compute — by a significant 19.7% margin. This suggests a clear advantage in general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The Intel part’s higher shading unit count (576 versus 352) and higher FP32 throughput (1,152 GFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS) support this result. The Intel part’s texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s is over three times the Quadro’s 22.57 GTexel/s, indicating a likely win in texture-heavy workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in pixel throughput. Its 11.29 GPixel/s exceeds the Intel part’s 9.000 GPixel/s, a 25% advantage. The Quadro’s 40 ROPs versus the Intel part’s 9 ROPs makes this result unsurprising — the Quadro is designed for geometry and pixel-heavy rendering tasks typical of professional visualization. The Quadro also has dedicated 2.5 GB GDDR5 memory with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Intel part’s system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. For workloads that require consistent memory access patterns, the Quadro’s dedicated VRAM provides a structural advantage.

The Quadro’s dual-slot form factor and 1x 6-pin power connector indicate it is designed for workstation installations with discrete GPU slots, while the Intel part’s IGP form factor integrates directly into the motherboard. The Quadro’s 152 W TDP versus the Intel part’s 15 W TDP — a tenfold difference — means the Intel part is viable in power-constrained environments where the Quadro would be impractical.

In real-world terms, the data suggests the Intel part wins in compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, texture processing, and scenarios where system memory is adequate. The Quadro wins in pixel-fill-rate-bound tasks, professional rendering pipelines that need dedicated VRAM, and legacy API environments that lack Vulkan support. The Quadro’s support for DirectX 12 (11_0) versus the Intel part’s (12_1) means the Intel part is more forward-compatible with modern games and applications.

# FAQ

Q: Which product has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 scores 9,082 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 5000’s score of 7,289.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 does not disclose its transistor count, die size, or density.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated bus width.

Q: Which product supports Vulkan?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W — a tenfold difference in power consumption.

Q: Which product has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has 576 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Generation 9.0 |

| Chip | GF100 | Skylake GT4e |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm+ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | Not disclosed |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | Not disclosed |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | Not disclosed |

| Memory Size | 2.5 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 352 | 576 |

| TMUs | 44 | 72 |

| ROPs | 40 | 9 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.29 GPixel/s | 9.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.57 GTexel/s | 72.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 722.3 GFLOPS | 1,152.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 152 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | 248 mm length, 111 mm height | None listed |

| Release Date | 2011-02-22 | 2015-08-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | None listed |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

# The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two products built for different eras and different purposes. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000, released in 2011 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, is a Fermi-generation workstation GPU designed for professional visualization. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, released in 2015, is an integrated solution built for power efficiency and modern API support.

For compute workloads, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is the clear winner. Its 19.7% OpenCL advantage, higher shading unit count, and superior FP32 performance make it the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks. Its FP16 capability of 2.304 TFLOPS adds a dimension the Quadro cannot match. The Intel part’s Vulkan 1.3 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) make it more compatible with modern software ecosystems.

For pixel-bound rendering, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 holds the edge. Its 25% higher pixel rate, 344% more ROPs, and dedicated 2.5 GB GDDR5 memory make it structurally superior for rasterization-heavy workloads. The Quadro’s dual-slot form factor with 1x 6-pin power connector indicates a design for sustained, high-power rendering sessions, while the Intel part’s 15 W TDP suggests thermal constraints that may limit sustained performance.

The power difference is a deciding factor for many use cases. The Quadro’s 152 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU make it unsuitable for compact or power-sensitive systems. The Intel part’s 15 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it can be integrated into virtually any motherboard without additional power considerations.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 for compute, efficiency, and modern API compatibility. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 for legacy professional rendering pipelines that depend on pixel throughput and dedicated VRAM. The Intel part wins the shared benchmark decisively, but the Quadro’s specialized hardware — particularly its 40 ROPs — addresses workloads the Intel part cannot handle at the same quality level. The 39th versus 40th percentile ranking difference is negligible, but the architectural strengths and weaknesses are not.