Quadro FX 1800M vs Iris Plus Graphics 640

Place in performance ranking	666	1017
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.71	0.03
Architecture	Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT3e	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	3 January 2017 (7 years ago)	1 February 2010 (14 years ago)
Current price	$669	$309

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 has 2267% better value for money than FX 1800M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	72
Core clock speed	300 MHz	560 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	52.80	13.46
Floating-point performance	no data	162 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Iris Plus Graphics 640 and Quadro FX 1800M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	MXM-A (3.0)

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	DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4	DDR3, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64/128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1100 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	35.2 GB/s
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

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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.103	N/A
CUDA	no data	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 3.85
+218%

FX 1800M 1.21

Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms Quadro FX 1800M by 218% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Iris Plus Graphics 640 1489
+220%

FX 1800M 466

Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms Quadro FX 1800M by 220% in Passmark.

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

24
+243%

7−8

−243%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +72.7%	10−12 −72.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +72.7%	10−12 −72.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +72.7%	10−12 −72.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+400%

2−3

−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 640 and FX 1800M compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 243% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 640 is ahead in 48 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.85	1.21
Recency	3 January 2017	1 February 2010
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	45 Watt