GeForce GT 630 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

Aggregate performance score

Iris Plus Graphics 655
2017
DDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
4.21
+141%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking646886
Place by popularitynot in top-10096
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.900.08
ArchitectureGen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eGF108
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 September 2017 (6 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99
Current price$999 $112 (1.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has 1025% better value for money than GT 630.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4896
Core clock speed300 MHz810 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate50.4012.96
Floating-point performanceno data311.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GeForce GT 630 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 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 typeDDR3/DDR4DDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMIno data+

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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.11.1
Vulkan1.1.103N/A
CUDAno data2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 4.21
+141%
GT 630 1.75

Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1736
+156%
GT 630 677

Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 156% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1983
+145%
GT 630 810

Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 145% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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 HD23
+156%
9−10
−156%
1440p15
+150%
6−7
−150%
4K15
+150%
6−7
−150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 19
+171%
7−8
−171%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+157%
7−8
−157%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 40
+150%
16−18
−150%
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Metro Exodus 5
+150%
2−3
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
+143%
7−8
−143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+175%
4−5
−175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 15
+150%
6−7
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+200%
2−3
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+200%
2−3
−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 655 and GT 630 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 156% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 150% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 150% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.21 1.75
Recency 1 September 2017 15 May 2012
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 65 Watt

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 630 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 655
Iris Plus Graphics 655
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630
GeForce GT 630

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.


3.6 303 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 2522 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 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.