FirePro W4190M vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 655 with FirePro W4190M, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 655
2018
15 Watt
4.49
+50.2%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms W4190M by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking663778
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency20.54no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameCoffee Lake GT3eOpal
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date3 April 2018 (6 years ago)12 November 2015 (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 cores384384
Core clock speed300 MHz825 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz900 MHz
Number of transistors189 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+++28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate50.4021.60
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS0.6912 TFLOPS
ROPs68
TMUs4824

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 datamedium sized
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x8
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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data64 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.

AppAcceleration-+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

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 655 4.49
+50.2%
W4190M 2.99

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 655 1731
+50.5%
W4190M 1150

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 655 2894
+23.1%
W4190M 2351

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 655 1983
+13.6%
W4190M 1745

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 655 14343
+16.4%
W4190M 12317

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 HD20
+81.8%
11
−81.8%
1440p10
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
4K12
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+188%
16−18
−188%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+27.3%
21−24
−27.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 23
+91.7%
12−14
−91.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 40
+150%
16−18
−150%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+27.3%
21−24
−27.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10
−120%
21−24
+120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 15
+25%
12−14
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Hitman 3 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
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 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and W4190M compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 82% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 67% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 71% faster in 4K

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 300% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the W4190M is 120% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is ahead in 58 tests (95%)
  • W4190M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.49 2.99
Recency 3 April 2018 12 November 2015
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 50.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4190M in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W4190M 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 655
Iris Plus Graphics 655
AMD FirePro W4190M
FirePro W4190M

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.


3.6 339 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 655 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 27 votes

Rate FirePro W4190M 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.