Iris Plus Graphics 650 vs GeForce GTX 285

Place in the ranking	693	648
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.27	no data
Power efficiency	1.33	21.01
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GT200B	Kaby Lake GT3e
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	23 December 2008 (15 years ago)	3 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	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	648 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1150 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	51.84	55.20
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	0.8832 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	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-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	DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	159.0 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	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
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.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	128bit	no data
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 285 3.92

Iris Plus Graphics 650 4.55
+16.1%

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 285 1513

Iris Plus Graphics 650 1757
+16.1%

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

−16.7%

21
+16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

19.94

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	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	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +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 285 and Iris Plus Graphics 650 compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 650 is 17% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.92	4.55
Recency	23 December 2008	3 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	15 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 650 has a 16.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 1260% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.

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