RTX A500 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 655 with RTX A500, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 655
2018
15 Watt
3.85

RTX A500 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by a whopping 289% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking681331
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency20.3519.79
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameCoffee Lake GT3eGA107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date3 April 2018 (6 years ago)10 November 2021 (3 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 cores3842048
Core clock speed300 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1770 MHz
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+++8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate50.40113.3
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS7.25 TFLOPS
ROPs632
TMUs4864
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 4.0 x8
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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data112.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR-+

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.

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 3.85
RTX A500 14.98
+289%

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 1720
RTX A500 6693
+289%

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 HD21
−281%
80−85
+281%
1440p10
−250%
35−40
+250%
4K16
−275%
60−65
+275%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−275%
60−65
+275%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−289%
35−40
+289%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−282%
65−70
+282%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−275%
60−65
+275%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−289%
35−40
+289%
Far Cry 5 11
−264%
40−45
+264%
Fortnite 22
−286%
85−90
+286%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−268%
70−75
+268%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−250%
35−40
+250%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−282%
65−70
+282%
Valorant 55−60
−282%
210−220
+282%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−282%
65−70
+282%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−275%
60−65
+275%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50
−280%
190−200
+280%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−289%
35−40
+289%
Dota 2 32
−275%
120−130
+275%
Far Cry 5 10
−250%
35−40
+250%
Fortnite 24−27
−275%
90−95
+275%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−268%
70−75
+268%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−250%
35−40
+250%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−250%
35−40
+250%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Metro Exodus 6
−250%
21−24
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−282%
65−70
+282%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−264%
40−45
+264%
Valorant 55−60
−282%
210−220
+282%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−282%
65−70
+282%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−289%
35−40
+289%
Dota 2 28
−257%
100−105
+257%
Far Cry 5 9
−289%
35−40
+289%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−268%
70−75
+268%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−282%
65−70
+282%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−250%
21−24
+250%
Valorant 55−60
−282%
210−220
+282%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
−275%
90−95
+275%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
−275%
120−130
+275%
Grand Theft Auto V 4
−250%
14−16
+250%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−275%
120−130
+275%
Valorant 45−50
−278%
170−180
+278%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−250%
35−40
+250%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12
−275%
45−50
+275%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−275%
60−65
+275%
Valorant 21−24
−281%
80−85
+281%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Dota 2 12
−275%
45−50
+275%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and RTX A500 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A500 is 281% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A500 is 250% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A500 is 275% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.85 14.98
Recency 3 April 2018 10 November 2021
Chip lithography 14 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 60 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has 300% lower power consumption.

RTX A500, on the other hand, has a 289.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 655 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook card while RTX A500 is a workstation 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 655
Iris Plus Graphics 655
NVIDIA RTX A500
RTX A500

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.


3.6 346 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 139 votes

Rate RTX A500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Plus Graphics 655 or RTX A500, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.