Radeon R7 350 vs Iris Plus Graphics 650

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 650 with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 650
2017
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
3.97

R7 350 outperforms Plus Graphics 650 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking716665
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency21.377.10
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eCape Verde
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 January 2017 (8 years ago)6 July 2016 (9 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 cores384512
Core clock speed300 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate55.2025.60
Floating-point processing power0.8832 TFLOPS0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs616
TMUs4832
L1 Cacheno data128 KB
L2 Cacheno data256 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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 Shared1125 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data72 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

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.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.31.2.131

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
−9.1%
24−27
+9.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Fortnite 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−20%
24−27
+20%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Valorant 55−60
−16.1%
65−70
+16.1%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
−20%
90−95
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Dota 2 30
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Fortnite 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−20%
24−27
+20%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Valorant 55−60
−16.1%
65−70
+16.1%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Dota 2 25
−20%
30−33
+20%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−20%
24−27
+20%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Valorant 55−60
−16.1%
65−70
+16.1%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%
Valorant 45−50
−11.1%
50−55
+11.1%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Valorant 21−24
−14.3%
24−27
+14.3%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 650 and R7 350 compete in popular games:

  • R7 350 is 9% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.97 4.84
Recency 3 January 2017 6 July 2016
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 55 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 650 has an age advantage of 5 months, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

R7 350, on the other hand, has a 21.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon R7 350 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 R7 350 is a desktop one.

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 350
Radeon R7 350

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 99 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 550 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Plus Graphics 650 or Radeon R7 350, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.