GeForce 310M vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking654not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency20.73no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameCoffee Lake GT3eGT218
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date3 April 2018 (6 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 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 cores38416
Core clock speed300 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+++40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate50.404.848
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs64
TMUs488

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 dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16
WidthIGPno data
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 SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedUp to 1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem SharedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidthno data10.67 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 DependentDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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 1733
+1407%
GeForce 310M 115

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 12287
+994%
GeForce 310M 1123

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 April 2018 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 14 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 7.1% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GeForce 310M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a desktop card while GeForce 310M is a notebook 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
NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M

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.


3.6 329 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 437 votes

Rate GeForce 310M 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.