Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 and NVIDIA Quadro M5000M represent two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics from the same 2015 era. The data shows an integrated processor graphics solution from Intel facing a dedicated professional mobile workstation GPU from NVIDIA. While both are end-of-life products, their benchmark results reveal starkly different performance profiles. The Iris Pro P580, built on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture with a Skylake GT4e chip, manages an average benchmark score of 7170. The Quadro M5000M, using NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a GM204 chip, posts a lower average score of 6481 across its broader benchmark suite, yet dominates in the head-to-head tests where both were measured.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 60.4% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's 9,082. The deltaPct of -60.4 indicates the Intel part trails by that margin.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro M5000M achieves a Geekbench Vulkan score of 24,875, while the Iris Pro P580 scores only 5,258. This represents a 78.9% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU, making it the larger margin of victory in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has an average benchmark score of 7,170 across its two Geekbench tests. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M averages 6,481 across its nine benchmark entries, which include PassMark tests for DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and compute workloads.

Q: Which GPU sits higher in the global percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 ranks in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M sits in the 37th percentile. Despite the Intel part's wins in the head-to-head tests, the percentile difference is only two points.

Q: What DirectX version do both GPUs support?

A: Both the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M support DirectX 12 (12_1). They also both support OpenGL 4.6, though the NVIDIA GPU lists Vulkan 1.4 support while the Intel GPU lists Vulkan 1.3.

Q: How many shading units does each GPU feature?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 contains 576 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M contains 1,536 shading units. The NVIDIA part also has more texture mapping units (96 versus 72) and more raster operation units (64 versus 9).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is built on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture using the Skylake GT4e chip, manufactured on a 14 nm+ process at Intel's own foundry. This is an integrated graphics processor that shares system memory, with a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The architecture relies on a Ring Bus interface and draws just 15 W of power, making it an IGP solution with motherboard-dependent display outputs.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a GM204 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This is a significantly larger chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The M5000M operates at a base clock of 962 MHz with a boost clock of 1051 MHz, and its memory runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed. It draws 100 W of power and uses an MXM Module slot with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

The Intel part features 576 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 9 raster operation units. In contrast, the NVIDIA GPU packs 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The pixel rate for the Intel GPU is 9.000 GPixel/s versus 67.26 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA GPU. Texture rates are 72.00 GTexel/s for Intel and 100.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The FP32 performance shows 1,152.0 GFLOPS for Intel and 3.229 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. Intel lists FP16 performance at 2.304 TFLOPS (2:1), while NVIDIA does not provide an FP16 figure.

Memory configurations differ completely. The Intel Iris Pro uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part lists its slot width as IGP, while the NVIDIA card is an MXM Module. Power connectors are listed as none for the NVIDIA card, and not specified for the Intel IGP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data includes two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M5000M scores 22,920 against the Iris Pro's 9,082, a delta of -60.4% for the Intel part. This means the NVIDIA GPU delivers more than 2.5 times the OpenCL performance of the Intel integrated solution. The margin is substantial and reflects the raw compute advantage of the dedicated GPU's 1,536 shading units versus 576.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens considerably. The Quadro M5000M achieves 24,875, while the Iris Pro P580 manages only 5,258. The deltaPct of -78.9 shows the Intel GPU trails by nearly four-fifths. This Vulkan result is particularly striking because it shows the NVIDIA architecture's advantage grows in lower-level API workloads. The Intel part's nearest rivals in the overall database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE with an average score of 7,171 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 at 7,157 (0.2% delta). The Quadro M5000M's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6,476 (0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M at 6,493 (-0.2% delta).

Despite losing both head-to-head tests, the Intel Iris Pro P580 has a higher average benchmark score of 7,170 compared to the Quadro's 6,481. This apparent contradiction stems from the benchmark suites used. The Intel part has only two Geekbench results, while the NVIDIA GPU has nine scores including PassMark tests. The PassMark DirectX 9 score of 119, DirectX 10 score of 35, DirectX 11 score of 54, and DirectX 12 score of 29 pull the NVIDIA average down, as do the PassMark G2D score of 476 and G3D score of 7,062.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process nodes are 14 nm+ for Intel and 28 nm for NVIDIA, representing two generations of manufacturing technology. Intel does not list transistor count or die size, while NVIDIA lists 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The base clocks are 350 MHz for Intel and 962 MHz for NVIDIA, with boost clocks of 1000 MHz and 1051 MHz respectively. Memory type is system shared for Intel and GDDR5 for NVIDIA, with the NVIDIA card offering 8 GB on a 256-bit bus at 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

The shading unit counts differ significantly: 576 for Intel versus 1,536 for NVIDIA. TMU counts are 72 versus 96, and ROP counts are 9 versus 64. Pixel rates are 9.000 GPixel/s versus 67.26 GPixel/s, while texture rates are 72.00 GTexel/s versus 100.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,152.0 GFLOPS versus 3.229 TFLOPS. The TDP is 15 W for Intel and 100 W for NVIDIA. The slot widths are IGP versus MXM Module. Bus interfaces are Ring Bus versus MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are motherboard dependent versus portable device dependent. Vulkan support is 1.3 for Intel and 1.4 for NVIDIA.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor, while the NVIDIA GPU lists its predecessor as Quadro Kepler-M and successor as Quadro Pascal-M. Neither has a launch MSRP listed. The release dates are close, with Intel on 2015-08-31 and NVIDIA on 2015-08-17.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy in the head-to-head tests. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the superior GPU for compute workloads, winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks by margins of 60.4% and 78.9% respectively. Its 1,536 shading units, 64 ROPs, and dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth provide the hardware resources needed for demanding professional applications. The FP32 throughput of 3.229 TFLOPS is nearly three times the Intel part's 1,152.0 GFLOPS.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 holds a higher average benchmark score of 7,170 versus 6,481, and a slightly better global percentile rank of 39 versus 37. This is because the Intel GPU's two benchmark results are both strong, while the NVIDIA card's PassMark scores include weak DirectX results that drag down its average. The Intel part also consumes only 15 W versus 100 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable systems where the NVIDIA MXM module would not fit.

For users who need maximum compute performance and have the power budget, the Quadro M5000M is the data-backed choice. Its Vulkan score of 24,875 is exceptional, and its OpenCL score of 22,920 demonstrates professional-grade compute capability. The Intel part is the choice for power-constrained integrated systems, where its 576 shading units and system shared memory provide adequate performance within a 15 W envelope. The benchmark data does not support the Intel GPU for high-end workstation tasks, but its average score shows it is not without merit in lighter workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,920 is 13,838 points higher than the Intel part, and its Vulkan score of 24,875 is 19,617 points higher. These are the only two directly comparable benchmarks, and the NVIDIA GPU wins both outright. The Quadro also offers dedicated memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets and texture-heavy workloads. Its 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate and 100.9 GTexel/s texture rate indicate strong fill rates for graphics rendering tasks.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins in the broader average benchmark comparison, posting 7,170 versus 6,481. Its percentile ranking of 39th is also higher than the Quadro's 37th. The Intel part achieves this with 15 W power consumption, a fraction of the NVIDIA GPU's 100 W. For systems where power efficiency matters more than peak performance, the Intel IGP is the stronger option. Its system shared memory approach means it can scale with available system RAM, and its Ring Bus interface is designed for tight integration with the CPU.

The PassMark results for the NVIDIA card show where it excels in legacy APIs: DirectX 9 score of 119, G2D score of 476, and G3D score of 7,062. These scores contribute to its average but do not appear in the head-to-head comparison. The Intel part's two Geekbench scores are both above the Quadro's average, demonstrating that benchmark selection significantly influences the perceived performance gap. The data ultimately shows a dedicated GPU that dominates in compute tests but has inconsistent legacy API performance, versus an integrated GPU that posts consistent results in modern APIs within a minimal power envelope.