Radeon R7 350 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 655 with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 655
2017
DDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
4.23

R7 350 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking652577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eCape Verde
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 September 2017 (6 years ago)6 July 2016 (8 years ago)

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 cores48512
Core clock speed300 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate50.4025.60
Floating-point performance0.8064 gflops0.8192 gflops

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data168 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/DDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data4500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data72 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

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_1)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.11.2
Vulkan1.1.1031.2.131

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 HD22
−22.7%
27−30
+22.7%
1440p12
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
4K15
−20%
18−20
+20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Battlefield 5 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 46
−30.4%
60−65
+30.4%
Hitman 3 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−25%
35−40
+25%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 23
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−25%
55−60
+25%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Battlefield 5 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 40
−25%
50−55
+25%
Hitman 3 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−25%
35−40
+25%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
−23.5%
21−24
+23.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−25%
55−60
+25%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Hitman 3 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10
−20%
12−14
+20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 15
−20%
18−20
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−25%
55−60
+25%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Hitman 3 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and R7 350 compete in popular games:

  • R7 350 is 23% faster in 1080p
  • R7 350 is 17% faster in 1440p
  • R7 350 is 20% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.23 5.58
Recency 1 September 2017 6 July 2016
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 55 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

R7 350, on the other hand, has a 31.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon R7 350 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 Radeon R7 350 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
AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350

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.


3.6 316 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 466 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 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.