Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two shared benchmark tests between the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro P5000 wins both, securing a 2 to 0 sweep in direct comparison.

The largest margin appears in Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 points, while the Iris Pro P580 manages 9,082. That is a delta of 478.2% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is not a close contest; the Quadro delivers compute throughput on a different scale entirely. The OpenCL workload stresses raw shading and memory bandwidth, both areas where the discrete card holds massive structural advantages.

The Vulkan test is considerably tighter. The Quadro P5000 scores 6,342, and the Iris Pro P580 scores 5,258. The delta here is 20.6%. While still a win for NVIDIA, the gap narrows substantially. This suggests that for lighter API workloads, the Intel integrated solution is not as far behind as the OpenCL result might imply. Still, the Quadro leads in every recorded metric.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro P5000 holds an average benchmark score of 8,039 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040, a delta of 0%. The GeForce GTX 650 Ti sits at 8,053 with a delta of -0.2%, and the GTX 650 Ti Boost at 8,067 with -0.3%. The NVIDIA GRID K2 is at 8,080 with -0.5%. The Quadro's percentile rank among all GPUs is 41.

The Iris Pro P580 has an average benchmark score of 7,170. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171, a delta of 0%. The GeForce GTX 970 sits at 7,157 with a delta of 0.2%, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 with -0.5%, and the GeForce GTX 750 at 7,222 with -0.7%. The Iris Pro's percentile rank is 39.

So while the head-to-head delta in OpenCL is enormous, the overall database averages tell a more nuanced story. The Quadro's average is only about 12.1% higher than the Iris Pro's, because the Quadro's other benchmark results, such as Passmark DirectX 9 at 170 and Passmark G3D at 12,634, are included in its average, while the Intel part only has two recorded tests. The average benchmark score is a composite, not a pure head-to-head measure. In direct comparison, the Quadro dominates; in aggregate database ranking, both parts sit near the 39 to 41 percentile range, meaning neither is a top-tier performer by modern standards.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins with a score of 52,509 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580's 9,082. That is a 478.2% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Is the Vulkan result closer than the OpenCL result?

A: Yes. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro P5000 scores 6,342 and the Iris Pro P580 scores 5,258, a delta of only 20.6%. The OpenCL margin was 478.2%, so the Vulkan gap is far smaller.

Q: How does the Quadro P5000's average benchmark score compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Quadro P5000 has an average benchmark score of 8,039. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M, scores 8,040, a delta of 0%. The two are effectively tied in the database averages.

Q: What is the Iris Pro P580's nearest rival in average score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 has an average score of 7,170. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171, a delta of 0%. The GeForce GTX 970 is just behind at 7,157 with a delta of 0.2%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro P5000 ranks at the 41st percentile, while the Iris Pro P580 ranks at the 39th. Both are below the midpoint of the database distribution.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes. Both report DirectX 12 (12_1) support. They also both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Iris Pro supports Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip built on the Pascal architecture. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. The die contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² area, giving a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 uses the Skylake GT4e chip built on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture. It is fabricated by Intel on a 14 nm+ process. The database does not record transistor count, die size, or density for the Intel part.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256 bit bus, delivering 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro P580 uses System Shared memory, with a bus width listed as System Shared and bandwidth described as System Dependent. This is the classic split between a discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM and an integrated GPU that borrows from system memory.

Compute resources differ sharply. The Quadro P5000 has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The Iris Pro P580 has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and only 9 ROPs. The ROP count is particularly low on the Intel part, which limits pixel throughput. The Quadro's pixel rate is 110.9 GPixel/s versus 9.000 GPixel/s for the Intel part. Texture rate is 277.3 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance tells a similar story. The Quadro delivers 8.873 TFLOPS, while the Iris Pro delivers 1,152.0 GFLOPS, which is roughly 1.152 TFLOPS. The FP16 situation flips in an interesting way. The Quadro's FP16 is 138.6 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, which is a heavily gimped rate. The Iris Pro's FP16 is 2.304 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it runs FP16 at twice the rate of FP32. This is a notable architectural difference: the Intel part has fast FP16 relative to its FP32, while the NVIDIA part does not.

The power envelope is also very different. The Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, and uses a single 8-pin power connector. The suggested PSU is 450 W. The Iris Pro P580 has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. This is a 165 W difference, which explains the massive gap in compute resources.

The bus interface differs as well. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Iris Pro uses a Ring Bus, which is Intel's internal interconnect for integrated graphics. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Iris Pro's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro P5000 has a base clock of 1607 MHz and a boost clock of 1733 MHz. The Iris Pro P580 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The Quadro's memory clock is 1127 MHz with 9 Gbps effective, while the Intel part uses System Shared memory with no dedicated clock.

Memory size is 16 GB for the Quadro versus System Shared for the Intel. Memory type is GDDR5X versus System Shared. Bus width is 256 bit versus System Shared. Bandwidth is 288.5 GB/s versus System Dependent.

Shading units: 2,560 versus 576. TMUs: 160 versus 72. ROPs: 64 versus 9. Pixel rate: 110.9 GPixel/s versus 9.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 277.3 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 8.873 TFLOPS versus 1,152.0 GFLOPS. FP16: 138.6 GFLOPS versus 2.304 TFLOPS. TDP: 180 W versus 15 W.

Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 450 W versus none. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs: 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus motherboard dependent.

Process node: 16 nm versus 14 nm+. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel. Transistors: 7,200 million versus not recorded. Die size: 314 mm² versus not recorded. Transistor density: 22.9M per mm² versus not recorded.

Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3. DirectX and OpenGL support are identical at 12 (12_1) and 4.6 respectively.

Release dates: the Quadro P5000 launched on 2016-09-30, while the Iris Pro P580 launched on 2015-08-31. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro has a predecessor, Quadro Maxwell, and a successor, Quadro Volta. The Intel part has neither recorded. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. No launch MSRP is recorded for the Intel part.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. It is the clear choice for tasks that demand sustained compute throughput, high memory bandwidth, and large VRAM capacity. The 16 GB of GDDR5X at 288.5 GB/s is an asset for large datasets, rendering workloads, and professional applications that cache heavily. The 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance puts it in a different class from the Intel integrated solution.

The Quadro also wins on pixel and texture throughput. With 110.9 GPixel/s and 277.3 GTexel/s, it can drive high-resolution displays and complex scenes without becoming the bottleneck. The 64 ROPs are particularly important for fill-rate-bound workloads. The 2,560 shading units provide substantial parallel compute capability for OpenCL workloads, as evidenced by the 478.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL.

Where the Iris Pro P580 has a claim is efficiency and form factor. At 15 W, it consumes a fraction of the Quadro's 180 W. It needs no power connectors, no dual-slot cooler, and no discrete card installation. It is an IGP on a Ring Bus, so it is suitable for compact systems where space and power are constrained. The FP16 rate of 2.304 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio is also interesting. For workloads that can use FP16 arithmetic, the Intel part is not as far behind as the FP32 numbers suggest.

The Vulkan result, with only a 20.6% delta, hints that the Iris Pro can hold its own in lighter API-bound scenarios. The database does not include gaming benchmarks for either part, so any claim about gaming performance must be limited to the recorded compute and API tests. In those, the Quadro wins both.

For a workstation use case, the Quadro P5000 is the obvious pick. It has dedicated memory, high bandwidth, and professional display outputs. For an embedded or low-power system where integrated graphics are the only option, the Iris Pro P580 is the only one of the two that fits. The data does not support any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the NVIDIA part in raw speed, but its existence at 15 W and as an IGP means it serves a different market segment entirely.

The average benchmark scores place both parts in the low 40th percentile range, so neither is a high-end performer in the full database context. The Quadro is closer to parity with older GeForce parts like the GTX 880M and GTX 650 Ti, while the Iris Pro sits near the GTX 560 SE and GTX 970. In direct competition, the Quadro P5000 wins decisively on performance, while the Iris Pro P580 wins on integration and power efficiency.