Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs GeForce GTX 280

Place in the ranking	739	665
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.12	no data
Power efficiency	0.97	20.36
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GT200	Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	7 October 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	240	384
Core clock speed	602 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1050 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	48.16	50.40
Floating-point processing power	0.6221 TFLOPS	0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	6
TMUs	80	48

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	Ring Bus
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	no data
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	512 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1107 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	141.7 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	HDTVDual Link DVI	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 280 3.34

Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.45
+33.2%

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.

GTX 280 1285

Iris Plus Graphics 645 1716
+33.5%

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

18−20

−44.4%

26
+44.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

36.06

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

This is how GTX 280 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 44% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.34	4.45
Recency	16 June 2008	7 October 2019
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	15 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has a 33.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1473.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 645 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 280 is a desktop card while Iris Plus Graphics 645 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.