Radeon RX 6600S vs Iris Plus Graphics 655
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 655 and Radeon RX 6600S, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6600S outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by a whopping 738% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 652 | 136 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) | RDNA 2 (2020−2023) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT3e | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2017 (6 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 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 cores | 48 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1881 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | 224.0 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.8064 gflops | 7.168 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | DDR3/DDR4 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 16000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 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 |
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.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | 1.2 |
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.
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.
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 | 22
−718%
| 180−190
+718%
|
| 1440p | 12
−733%
| 100−110
+733%
|
| 4K | 15
−700%
| 120−130
+700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−533%
|
75−80
+533%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−1425%
|
60−65
+1425%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−1050%
|
110−120
+1050%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−700%
|
70−75
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−767%
|
75−80
+767%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−642%
|
85−90
+642%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
−293%
|
180−190
+293%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
−439%
|
150−160
+439%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−1189%
|
110−120
+1189%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−673%
|
85−90
+673%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 23
−452%
|
120−130
+452%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−180%
|
120−130
+180%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−533%
|
75−80
+533%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−1425%
|
60−65
+1425%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−1050%
|
110−120
+1050%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−700%
|
70−75
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−767%
|
75−80
+767%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−642%
|
85−90
+642%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40
−353%
|
180−190
+353%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
−439%
|
150−160
+439%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−1189%
|
110−120
+1189%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−673%
|
85−90
+673%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17
−647%
|
120−130
+647%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−363%
|
70−75
+363%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−180%
|
120−130
+180%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
−533%
|
75−80
+533%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−1425%
|
60−65
+1425%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−700%
|
70−75
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−767%
|
75−80
+767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−596%
|
180−190
+596%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10
−1410%
|
150−160
+1410%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 15
−747%
|
120−130
+747%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−1133%
|
70−75
+1133%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−180%
|
120−130
+180%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−673%
|
85−90
+673%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−750%
|
65−70
+750%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−800%
|
50−55
+800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−850%
|
35−40
+850%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−720%
|
40−45
+720%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−3267%
|
200−210
+3267%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−660%
|
75−80
+660%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
−592%
|
180−190
+592%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−663%
|
60−65
+663%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−16900%
|
170−180
+16900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1533%
|
45−50
+1533%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−520%
|
30−35
+520%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and RX 6600S compete in popular games:
- RX 6600S is 718% faster in 1080p
- RX 6600S is 733% faster in 1440p
- RX 6600S is 700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6600S is 16900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6600S is ahead in 65 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.23 | 35.44 |
| Recency | 1 September 2017 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics 655 has 433.3% lower power consumption.
RX 6600S, on the other hand, has a 737.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6600S is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 655 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.
