GeForce GT 630M vs Iris Plus Graphics 655
Aggregated performance score
Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by a whopping 202% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 644 | 958 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.93 | 0.02 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT3e | N13P-GL/GL2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2017 (6 years ago) | 6 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $999 | $1121 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Iris Plus Graphics 655 has 4550% better value for money than GT 630M.
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 cores | 48 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | Up to 12.8 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 253.4 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GeForce GT 630M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-A (3.0) |
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 type | DDR3/DDR4 | DDR3\GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | Up to 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 32.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| DirectX 11.2 | no data | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 202% based on our aggregated 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 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 223% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 152% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 180% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 176% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 157% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 133% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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:
| 900p | 55−60
+189%
| 19
−189%
|
| Full HD | 21
+31.3%
| 16
−31.3%
|
| 1440p | 15
+275%
| 4−5
−275%
|
| 4K | 16
+220%
| 5−6
−220%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GT 630M compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 189% faster in 900p
- Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 31% faster in 1080p
- Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 275% faster in 1440p
- Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 220% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 1200% faster than the GT 630M.
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 630M is 40% faster than the Iris Plus Graphics 655.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 655 is ahead in 30 tests (94%)
- GT 630M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.20 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 1 September 2017 | 6 December 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 33 Watt |
The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
