GRID K340 vs Iris Graphics 550
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Graphics 550 with GRID K340, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 550 outperforms K340 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 791 | 834 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 18.06 | 1.01 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT3e | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (11 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 384 ×4 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 30.40 ×4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.768 TFLOPS | 0.7296 TFLOPS ×4 |
| ROPs | 6 | 8 ×4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 ×4 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB ×4 |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit ×4 |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 GB/s ×4 |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 20
+25%
| 16−18
−25%
|
| 1440p | 28
+33.3%
| 21−24
−33.3%
|
| 4K | 50
+25%
| 40−45
−25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 206.19 |
| 1440p | no data | 157.10 |
| 4K | no data | 82.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 54
+20%
|
45−50
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 25
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 28
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+25.9%
|
27−30
−25.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how Iris Graphics 550 and GRID K340 compete in popular games:
- Iris Graphics 550 is 25% faster in 1080p
- Iris Graphics 550 is 33% faster in 1440p
- Iris Graphics 550 is 25% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.50 | 2.93 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 23 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 225 Watt |
Iris Graphics 550 has a 19% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1400% lower power consumption.
The Iris Graphics 550 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K340 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Graphics 550 is a notebook graphics card while GRID K340 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
