Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 leads with an average benchmark score of 8265, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 trails at 7170. The Quadro K1200 sits at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Intel part's 39th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9082, beating the Quadro K1200's 8831 by 2.8%. This is a narrow margin, less than the gap between the K1200 and several of its closest rivals.

Q: Where does the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 achieve its biggest win?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Quadro K1200 scores 7698 against the Intel Iris Pro's 5258, a decisive 46.4% advantage. This is the single largest performance difference recorded in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between these two parts?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is rated at 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 carries a 45 W TDP. The Intel solution draws one-third the power of the NVIDIA card, making it far more suitable for compact, low-power systems.

Q: How do the nearest rivals frame the performance of each GPU?

A: The Quadro K1200's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, which scores 8325, a 0.7% difference. The Intel Iris Pro P580's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7171, a 0% delta, making it a near-exact performance match.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 was released on January 27, 2015, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 followed on August 31, 2015.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is built on the GM107 chip using NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 1,870 million transistors across 148 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, by contrast, uses the Skylake GT4e chip with Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm+ process at Intel's own foundry. This process advantage gives Intel a significant manufacturing edge, though the database does not list transistor counts or die size for the Intel part.

The compute layouts differ substantially. The Quadro K1200 packs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Iris Pro P580 counters with 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, but only 9 ROPs. The texture processing asymmetry is stark: Intel's part has more than double the TMU count, while NVIDIA's part has nearly double the ROP count. This structural difference shapes where each GPU excels in the benchmark data.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Quadro K1200 runs at a 954 MHz base clock with a 1033 MHz boost, while the Iris Pro P580 starts at a much lower 350 MHz base but boosts to 1000 MHz. Memory architecture is fundamentally different: the Quadro uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel solution relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro's memory clock is 1253 MHz, translating to 5 Gbps effective.

Feature support shows a mixed picture. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K1200 lists Vulkan 1.4 while the Iris Pro P580 lists Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a higher feature level than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0). The Iris Pro also offers FP16 throughput of 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1), a capability not listed for the Quadro.

Physical and integration characteristics differ completely. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot, 160 mm (6.3 inches) long, 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Iris Pro P580 is an integrated graphics processor with a ring bus interface, motherboard-dependent display outputs, and no physical dimensions listed. The Quadro requires a 200 W suggested power supply and has no power connectors, while the Intel part draws power through the host system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data reveals a polarized performance profile. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 scores 9082 against the Quadro K1200's 8831, a 2.8% advantage. This is a slim margin, and context from the nearest rivals helps interpret it. The Quadro K1200's average score of 8265 places it within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon R9 M360, its weakest listed rival. The Intel part's OpenCL win, while real, falls within the noise band of its own rival cluster: the Iris Pro P580 sits between the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7203 (0.5% ahead) and the GeForce GTX 750 at 7222 (0.7% behind).

The Vulkan test tells a very different story. The Quadro K1200 scores 7698, beating the Iris Pro P580's 5258 by a commanding 46.4%. This is not a marginal win; it is a near-50% performance gap. The Quadro's Vulkan result is also notable in absolute terms: 7698 is close to its OpenCL score of 8831, suggesting consistent performance across API workloads. The Intel part, by contrast, drops from 9082 in OpenCL to 5258 in Vulkan, a 42% decline between the two tests.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the Vulkan result as the decisive factor. The Quadro K1200 averages 8265 across its recorded tests, while the Intel part averages 7170. That 1,095-point gap translates to a 15.3% advantage for NVIDIA. The rival data brackets both GPUs tightly: the Quadro's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, scores 8325 (0.7% higher), while the Intel part's nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 560 SE, scores 7171 (0% difference). The Quadro also outperforms the GeForce GTX 980 (8167) by 1.2% and the GeForce GTX 950M (8135) by 1.6% in average score, placing it above several well-known gaming parts.

The wins are split one apiece in the head-to-head table, but the magnitude matters. The Intel part's OpenCL win is 2.8%, a margin that could shift with driver updates or workload variations. The Quadro's Vulkan win is 46.4%, a structural advantage rooted in its dedicated memory and ROP configuration. When averaged, the Quadro emerges clearly ahead despite losing the OpenCL test.

Specification Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 differ across nearly every measured specification. The process node gives Intel a clear lead: 14 nm+ versus 28 nm. The Quadro uses TSMC as its foundry, while Intel fabricates its own chip. Transistor count and die size are only listed for the Quadro (1,870 million transistors, 148 mm²), leaving the Intel part's physical characteristics unrecorded in the database.

Memory configuration is the most fundamental divergence. The Quadro K1200 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth and a 1253 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro P580 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. This means the Quadro's memory performance is fixed and predictable, while the Intel part's memory behavior varies with the host system's RAM configuration.

Compute resources differ in both count and ratio. The Quadro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 9 ROPs. Pixel rates reflect the ROP disparity: the Quadro achieves 16.53 GPixel/s versus the Intel part's 9.000 GPixel/s. Texture rates reverse the trend: the Quadro manages 33.06 GTexel/s while the Intel part reaches 72.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute slightly favors Intel at 1,152.0 GFLOPS versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a 9% difference.

Power and physical specifications could not be more different. The Quadro is a 45 W, single-slot card measuring 160 mm by 69 mm, with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and a 200 W suggested power supply. The Iris Pro P580 is a 15 W integrated processor with a ring bus interface, motherboard-dependent display outputs, and no listed slot width, dimensions, or power supply requirement. The Quadro has no power connectors; the Intel part lists none as well, but as an IGP it draws power through the motherboard.

API support shows a split. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4 versus the Intel part's Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the Quadro is capped at DirectX 12 (11_0). FP16 capability is listed only for the Intel part at 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1); the Quadro's FP16 performance is not recorded. Release dates differ by roughly seven months: the Quadro launched January 27, 2015, and the Iris Pro P580 on August 31, 2015.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 wins in scenarios that stress rasterization and API-specific rendering workloads. Its 46.4% Vulkan advantage over the Intel Iris Pro P580 is the clearest signal: applications using Vulkan can expect substantially higher performance from the Quadro. The GPU's ROP count of 16, double the Intel part's 9, explains its 16.53 GPixel/s pixel rate and suggests an edge in fill-rate-bound tasks. The dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth also makes the Quadro the better choice for workloads that need consistent, predictable memory performance rather than relying on shared system memory.

The Quadro's average benchmark score of 8265, which beats the Intel part's 7170 by 15.3%, positions it above several gaming-oriented rivals in the database. It outperforms the GeForce GTX 980 by 1.2% and the GeForce GTX 950M by 1.6% in average score, which is notable for a workstation-oriented card. Its 43rd percentile ranking across all GPUs, versus the Intel part's 39th, confirms its overall standing.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins in compute-throughput and efficiency-oriented scenarios. Its 2.8% OpenCL advantage over the Quadro K1200, while modest, is backed by higher raw compute resources: 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 1,152.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The 72.00 GTexel/s texture rate, more than double the Quadro's 33.06 GTexel/s, suggests a clear advantage in texture-heavy workloads. The FP16 capability of 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1) adds another compute dimension the Quadro does not list.

The 15 W TDP versus 45 W makes the Intel part the obvious choice for thermally constrained systems. As an integrated GPU with a ring bus interface, it requires no expansion slot, no power connectors, and no suggested power supply. For compact laptops, low-power desktops, or systems where every watt matters, the Iris Pro P580 delivers competitive OpenCL performance at a third of the power draw. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level also gives it a potential API feature advantage over the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), relevant for applications that use tier-2 or tier-3 DirectX 12 features.

The use-case split is clean. The Quadro K1200 is the pick for Vulkan-based rendering, pixel-rate-bound graphics, and workloads needing dedicated memory bandwidth. The Iris Pro P580 is the pick for OpenCL compute, texture-heavy processing, FP16 workloads, and any system where power efficiency or physical integration takes priority over Vulkan performance. The benchmark data does not support a single overall winner; it supports two different tools for two different jobs.