Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) vs Iris Plus Graphics 640

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 640 and Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Plus Graphics 640
2017
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
3.86
+360%

Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms R3 (Mullins/Beema) by a whopping 360% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking7001142
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017)GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eBeema/Mullins
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 January 2017 (7 years ago)29 April 2014 (10 years ago)

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 cores48128
Core clock speed300 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz686 MHz
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate52.80no data
Floating-point performance0.8448 gflopsno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1no 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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4no data
Maximum RAM amount32 GBno data
Memory bus width64/128 Bit64 Bit
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.1no data
Vulkan1.1.103-

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 3.86
+360%
R3 (Mullins/Beema) 0.84

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 2379
+284%
R3 (Mullins/Beema) 620

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 1394
+232%
R3 (Mullins/Beema) 420

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 11248
+269%
R3 (Mullins/Beema) 3049

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 HD22
+46.7%
15
−46.7%

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 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+35.5%
30−35
−35.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+35.5%
30−35
−35.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
−150%
10−11
+150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+35.5%
30−35
−35.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
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 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 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
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 640 and R3 (Mullins/Beema) compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 47% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 900% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R3 (Mullins/Beema) is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 640 is ahead in 37 tests (97%)
  • R3 (Mullins/Beema) is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.86 0.84
Recency 3 January 2017 29 April 2014
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm

Iris Plus Graphics 640 has a 359.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Plus Graphics 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640
Iris Plus Graphics 640
AMD Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)
Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 295 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 28 votes

Rate Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.