Radeon HD 6540G2 vs Iris Plus Graphics 640
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 640 and Radeon HD 6540G2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Plus Graphics 640 outperforms HD 6540G2 by a whopping 203% 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 | 782 | 1114 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.42 | no data |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT3e | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (9 years ago) | 14 June 2011 (15 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 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm++ | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 52.80 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8448 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 6 | no data |
| TMUs | 48 | no data |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | Ring Bus | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no data |
| 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 | 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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
+250%
| 6−7
−250%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+59.4%
|
30−35
−59.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+132%
|
27−30
−132%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+59.4%
|
30−35
−59.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+59.4%
|
30−35
−59.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 640 and HD 6540G2 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 250% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 1200% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6540G2 is 75% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 640 performs better in 42 tests (98%)
- HD 6540G2 performs better in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.58 | 1.18 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 14 June 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Iris Plus Graphics 640 has a 203% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Plus Graphics 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6540G2 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.
