Arc A380M vs Iris Plus Graphics 650

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking651not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eDG2-128
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 January 2017 (7 years ago)24 January 2023 (1 year 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 cores481024
Core clock speed300 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1100 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistors189 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate55.20128.0
Floating-point performance0.8832 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 x1MXM-A (3.1)
Widthno dataMXM Module

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/DDR4GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 GB6 GB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speedno data15.5 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data186.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.1.1031.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 January 2017 24 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 650 has a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

Arc A380M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Iris Plus Graphics 650 and Arc A380M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 650 is a notebook card while Arc A380M is a desktop one.


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 650
Iris Plus Graphics 650
Intel Arc A380M
Arc A380M

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.


2.7 96 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 7 votes

Rate Arc A380M 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.