Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs Iris Plus Graphics 650

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 650 with Radeon Pro Vega 16, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 650
2017
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
4.57

Pro Vega 16 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 650 by a whopping 174% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking655399
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency21.0211.51
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eVega 12
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date3 January 2017 (8 years ago)14 November 2018 (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 cores3841024
Core clock speed300 MHz815 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHz1190 MHz
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate55.2076.16
Floating-point processing power0.8832 TFLOPS2.437 TFLOPS
ROPs632
TMUs4864

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x16

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/DDR4HBM2
Maximum RAM amount32 GB4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared1024 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1200 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data307.2 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.2.131

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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 650 4.57
Pro Vega 16 12.51
+174%

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 650 1757
Pro Vega 16 4809
+174%

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 650 2762
Pro Vega 16 10569
+283%

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 650 1698
Pro Vega 16 7745
+356%

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 650 13153
Pro Vega 16 56273
+328%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Iris Plus Graphics 650 555
Pro Vega 16 2198
+296%

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 HD21
−171%
57
+171%
4K12−14
−217%
38
+217%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−83.3%
21−24
+83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−167%
24−27
+167%
Elden Ring 10−12
−236%
35−40
+236%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−215%
40−45
+215%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−83.3%
21−24
+83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−167%
24−27
+167%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−163%
50−55
+163%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−240%
30−35
+240%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−129%
30−35
+129%
Valorant 10−11
−390%
45−50
+390%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−215%
40−45
+215%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−83.3%
21−24
+83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−167%
24−27
+167%
Dota 2 15
−66.7%
25
+66.7%
Elden Ring 10−12
−236%
35−40
+236%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−91.3%
44
+91.3%
Fortnite 27−30
−163%
70−75
+163%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−163%
50−55
+163%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−463%
45−50
+463%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−240%
30−35
+240%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 48
−93.8%
90−95
+93.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−129%
30−35
+129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−153%
35−40
+153%
Valorant 10−11
−390%
45−50
+390%
World of Tanks 75−80
−125%
170−180
+125%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−215%
40−45
+215%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−83.3%
21−24
+83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−167%
24−27
+167%
Dota 2 25
−188%
72
+188%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−109%
45−50
+109%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−163%
50−55
+163%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−138%
90−95
+138%
Valorant 10−11
−390%
45−50
+390%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%
Elden Ring 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−161%
80−85
+161%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
World of Tanks 30−35
−170%
85−90
+170%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−317%
24−27
+317%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−190%
27−30
+190%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−383%
27−30
+383%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−150%
14−16
+150%
Valorant 12−14
−138%
30−35
+138%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−35.3%
21−24
+35.3%
Elden Ring 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−43.8%
21−24
+43.8%
Metro Exodus 0−1 8−9
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−43.8%
21−24
+43.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Dota 2 16−18
−124%
38
+124%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−200%
14−16
+200%
Fortnite 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%
Valorant 4−5
−225%
12−14
+225%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 650 and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 16 is 171% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 16 is 217% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 16 is 767% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 16 is ahead in 60 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.57 12.51
Recency 3 January 2017 14 November 2018
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 75 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 650 has a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 400% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega 16, on the other hand, has a 173.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 650 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 650 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation 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
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16
Radeon Pro Vega 16

Other comparisons

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 98 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 11 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 16 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.