Radeon HD 6350 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 655 with Radeon HD 6350, including specs and performance data.
Plus Graphics 655 outperforms HD 6350 by a whopping 1148% 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 | 746 | 1387 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.39 | 1.35 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Coffee Lake GT3e | Park |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 April 2018 (8 years ago) | 7 February 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $23 |
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 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | 5.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 6 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 6.4 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a |
| HDMI | - | + |
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) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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 | 21
+2000%
| 1−2 |
| 1440p | 10 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 16
+1500%
| 1−2 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 23.00 |
| 4K | no data | 23.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 22
+2100%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
+1150%
|
4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 32
+1500%
|
2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 6 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 28
+1300%
|
2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3 |
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| Valorant | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and HD 6350 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 2000% faster in 1080p
- Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 1500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.12 | 0.33 |
| Recency | 3 April 2018 | 7 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 19 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 1148% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 65% more advanced lithography process, and 21% lower power consumption.
The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6350 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6350 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
