Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) and Iris Plus Graphics 645, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 703 | 674 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.16 | 20.43 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Ice Lake G4 Gen. 11 | Coffee Lake GT3e |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 28 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 7 October 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 | 48 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-25 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 50.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.8064 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 6 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
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 | no data | Ring Bus |
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 | DDR4 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 17
−52.9%
| 26
+52.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−5.7%
|
55−60
+5.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 13
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 37
−100%
|
70−75
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−61.1%
|
29
+61.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Fortnite | 12
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−5.7%
|
55−60
+5.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
−35%
|
27
+35%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−5.7%
|
55−60
+5.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−12.5%
|
45−50
+12.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 53% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) is 8% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 243% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 51 test (82%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.07 | 4.47 |
| Recency | 28 May 2019 | 7 October 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 15 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) has a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has a 9.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) and Iris Plus Graphics 645.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
