Radeon 625 vs Iris Plus Graphics 645
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 645 and Radeon 625, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Plus Graphics 645 outperforms 625 by an impressive 63% 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 | 719 | 857 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.45 | 3.95 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Coffee Lake GT3e | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 October 2019 (6 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 6 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
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 | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
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.
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.
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 | 26
+85.7%
| 14−16
−85.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+27.3%
|
40−45
−27.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+11.5%
|
24−27
−11.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+27.3%
|
40−45
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+27.3%
|
40−45
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+68.4%
|
18−20
−68.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+95.7%
|
21−24
−95.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 645 and Radeon 625 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 86% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Escape from Tarkov, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Plus Graphics 645 surpassed Radeon 625 in all 55 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.17 | 2.56 |
| Recency | 7 October 2019 | 13 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics 645 has a 62.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Plus Graphics 645 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 625 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.
