GeForce Go 6800 vs Iris Graphics 6100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Graphics 6100 and GeForce Go 6800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics 6100 outperforms Go 6800 by a whopping 756% 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 | 932 | 1442 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.04 | 0.43 |
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Broadwell GT3 | NV41 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2015 (11 years ago) | 8 November 2004 (21 years ago) |
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 | 17 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 190 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.768 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 6 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 12 |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-III |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 35.2 GB/s |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
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 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 14
+1300%
| 1−2
−1300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 33
+154%
|
12−14
−154%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how Iris Graphics 6100 and Go 6800 compete in popular games:
- Iris Graphics 6100 is 1300% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Graphics 6100 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Graphics 6100 surpassed Go 6800 in all 24 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.14 | 0.25 |
| Recency | 5 January 2015 | 8 November 2004 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
Iris Graphics 6100 has a 756% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 829% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Iris Graphics 6100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6800 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
