Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M. The GTX 580M scored 6389 points against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5712 points, a delta of 11.9 percent. This places the NVIDIA part in a higher performance tier, but the margin is far from a blowout. The data suggests that the Intel integrated solution is competitive enough to keep the gap within a single-digit percentage range from a purely computational standpoint.

The percentiles reinforce this positioning. The GTX 580M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile. A four-percentile-point spread is narrow, indicating that both parts occupy a similar, mid-to-low range of overall performance. The NVIDIA card's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 SE with an identical average score of 6389, and the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell, which is only 0.3 percent ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 trails by 0.9 percent, and the Radeon R7 M350 is 1 percent behind. For the Intel part, the nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 670MX, which is only 0.1 percent faster, and the GeForce GTX 550 Ti, which is 0.3 percent faster. The AMD Radeon HD 8790M sits 0.4 percent behind, and the Quadro M500M is 1.9 percent slower.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M wins the only benchmark category recorded, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 6389. That is a single, decisive win in the database's head-to-head table. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 does not win any benchmark in this comparison. However, the qualitative picture is more nuanced. The GTX 580M is a discrete, MXM-module part with its own dedicated memory, which gives it a structural advantage in tasks that stress memory bandwidth and sustained load. The Iris Pro P6300, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor that shares system memory, making it more suited to workloads where the CPU and GPU are not both hammering the same memory pool simultaneously.

In terms of raw throughput, the GTX 580M's pixel rate is 9.920 GPixel/s, more than double the Iris Pro's 4.800 GPixel/s. The texture rates are closer, with the NVIDIA part at 39.68 GTexel/s versus the Intel's 38.40 GTexel/s, a difference of just over one texel per second. The FP32 compute is also in NVIDIA's favor: 952.3 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS. This means the GTX 580M is better suited for compute-heavy or gaming-oriented loads where pixel fill and floating-point operations matter. The Iris Pro's lower power envelope and integrated nature make it more appropriate for a laptop that needs to balance thermals and battery life, but the data does not show a benchmark where it surpasses the NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and philosophies. The GTX 580M is built on NVIDIA's Fermi 2.0 architecture, specifically the GF114 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Iris Pro P6300 uses Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, with the Broadwell GT3e chip, on a 14 nm process at Intel's own fabs. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part, but the process node difference is stark: 40 nm versus 14 nm. The newer, smaller process gives Intel a significant efficiency edge, which is reflected in the power figures.

The GTX 580M has 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Iris Pro P6300 also has 384 shading units, but only 48 TMUs and 6 ROPs. The ROP count disparity is enormous, explaining the large difference in pixel fill rate. The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The NVIDIA card uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively, meaning its memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system's RAM configuration.

Clock speeds differ as well. The GTX 580M's memory runs at 750 MHz, translating to 3 Gbps effective. The Iris Pro has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz, which are typical for an integrated part that scales its frequency based on thermal headroom. API support shows a split: the GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The Iris Pro P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Intel part's Vulkan support is notable, as it opens the door to modern cross-platform graphics APIs that the older NVIDIA part cannot access.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M is faster, scoring 6389 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Intel Iris Pro P6300's 5712, a margin of 11.9 percent.

Q: How do these two compare to their closest rivals?

A: The GTX 580M is matched exactly by the GeForce GTX 460 SE (both at 6389), while the Iris Pro P6300 is nearly matched by the GeForce GTX 670MX, which is only 0.1 percent faster.

Q: Do they have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units, though the GTX 580M has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs, while the Iris Pro has 48 TMUs and only 6 ROPs.

Q: Which one has better memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 580M has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth; the Iris Pro uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W, while the Iris Pro P6300 has a TDP of 15 W, a substantial difference reflecting their discrete versus integrated designs.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Intel Iris Pro P6300 lists Vulkan 1.0 support; the GTX 580M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Generation 8.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | Not specified |

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

| Base Clock | Not specified | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 800 MHz |

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

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.920 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.68 GTexel/s | 38.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 952.3 GFLOPS | 614.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs| Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan Support | Not specified | 1.0 |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for users who need maximum graphics compute capability: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M. It wins the only recorded benchmark with an 11.9 percent margin, offers more than double the pixel fill rate, and has 349 more GFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its dedicated GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides a stable, predictable memory subsystem that does not depend on the host system's RAM. For gaming or GPU-accelerated compute in a laptop, the GTX 580M is the superior performer.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, however, has its own advantages that the benchmark scores do not fully capture. Its 14 nm process node, compared to the GTX 580M's 40 nm, is a generational leap in efficiency. Its TDP of 15 W versus 100 W means it produces far less heat and places far less demand on the system's power delivery. For a thin-and-light laptop or a workstation where battery life and thermals are paramount, the Iris Pro's integrated design is a sensible trade-off. Its Vulkan 1.0 support also gives it a modern API advantage over the NVIDIA part, which lacks Vulkan entirely. The choice hinges on whether the user prioritizes raw performance or efficiency and modernity. The benchmark data favors NVIDIA, but the specification sheet tells a story of two very different design philosophies.