Radeon R7 240 vs Iris Plus Graphics 650

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 650 with Radeon R7 240, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 650
2017
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
4.56
+95.7%

Iris Plus Graphics 650 outperforms R7 240 by an impressive 96% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking655850
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.16
Power efficiency20.835.32
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eOland
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date3 January 2017 (7 years ago)8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$69

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores384320
Core clock speed300 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1150 MHz780 MHz
Number of transistors189 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate55.2014.00
Floating-point processing power0.8832 TFLOPS0.448 TFLOPS
ROPs68
TMUs4820

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataN/A

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/DDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount32 GB2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1150 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data72 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 Dependent1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.3-

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 4.56
+95.7%
R7 240 2.33

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
+95.9%
R7 240 897

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
+39.2%
R7 240 1220

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 HD19
+111%
9−10
−111%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data7.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+100%
14−16
−100%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+100%
14−16
−100%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+100%
14−16
−100%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Hitman 3 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+100%
14−16
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
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 650 and R7 240 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 650 is 111% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.56 2.33
Recency 3 January 2017 8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 50 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 650 has a 95.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 650 is a notebook card while Radeon R7 240 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
AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240

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 98 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1194 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 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.