Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs Iris Plus Graphics 655
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 655 with Radeon Pro Vega 64X, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 64X outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by a whopping 675% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 678 | 157 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 20.41 | 9.49 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Coffee Lake GT3e | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 April 2018 (6 years ago) | 19 March 2019 (5 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 cores | 384 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1468 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | 375.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 6 | 64 |
| TMUs | 48 | 256 |
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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No 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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.125 |
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.
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.
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 HD | 21
−662%
| 160−170
+662%
|
| 1440p | 10
−650%
| 75−80
+650%
|
| 4K | 16
−650%
| 120−130
+650%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−665%
|
130−140
+665%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
−673%
|
85−90
+673%
|
| Fortnite | 22
−673%
|
170−180
+673%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−665%
|
130−140
+665%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−614%
|
400−450
+614%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−665%
|
130−140
+665%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
−600%
|
350−400
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Dota 2 | 32
−650%
|
240−250
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−650%
|
180−190
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−665%
|
130−140
+665%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−673%
|
85−90
+673%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−614%
|
400−450
+614%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−665%
|
130−140
+665%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
−650%
|
210−220
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−665%
|
130−140
+665%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−614%
|
400−450
+614%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−650%
|
180−190
+650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−650%
|
240−250
+650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−650%
|
240−250
+650%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−567%
|
300−310
+567%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12
−650%
|
90−95
+650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−662%
|
160−170
+662%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−650%
|
90−95
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and Pro Vega 64X compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 64X is 662% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 64X is 650% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 64X is 650% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.86 | 29.92 |
| Recency | 3 April 2018 | 19 March 2019 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics 655 has 1566.7% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega 64X, on the other hand, has a 675.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 11 months.
The Radeon Pro Vega 64X 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 graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 64X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
