Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Place in the ranking	478	666
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	22.77	20.52
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 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	96	384
Core clock speed	400 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	1050 MHz
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	28 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	no data	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 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. 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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.24
+107%

Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.46

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 6504
+118%

Iris Plus Graphics 645 2985

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5139
+171%

Iris Plus Graphics 645 1893

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 1560
+184%

Iris Plus Graphics 645 550

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	27 +8%	25 −8%
1440p	16 +129%	7−8 −129%
4K	11 +120%	5−6 −120%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	15 +25%	12−14 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +122%	9−10 −122%
Elden Ring	21 +110%	10−11 −110%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +131%	12−14 −131%
Counter-Strike 2	13 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Forza Horizon 4	38 +100%	18−20 −100%
Metro Exodus	29 +190%	10−11 −190%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +21.4%	14−16 −21.4%
Valorant	26 +189%	9−10 −189%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +131%	12−14 −131%
Counter-Strike 2	12 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Dota 2	28 +180%	10 −180%
Elden Ring	22 +120%	10−11 −120%
Far Cry 5	31 +34.8%	23 −34.8%
Fortnite	50−55 +108%	24−27 −108%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +57.9%	18−20 −57.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 +21.4%	14−16 −21.4%
Metro Exodus	19 +90%	10−11 −90%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +89.5%	35−40 −89.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8 −75%	14−16 +75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +86.7%	14−16 −86.7%
Valorant	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
World of Tanks	96 +29.7%	70−75 −29.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +131%	12−14 −131%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Dota 2	47 +74.1%	27 −74.1%
Far Cry 5	34 +54.5%	21−24 −54.5%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +26.3%	18−20 −26.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +89.5%	35−40 −89.5%
Valorant	23 +156%	9−10 −156%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Elden Ring	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
World of Tanks	65−70 +109%	30−35 −109%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	3 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +100%	10−11 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +280%	5−6 −280%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Valorant	21−24 +76.9%	12−14 −76.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Dota 2	8 −100%	16−18 +100%
Elden Ring	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
Grand Theft Auto V	8 −100%	16−18 +100%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +108%	12−14 −108%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −100%	16−18 +100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	20 +25%	16−18 −25%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Fortnite	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Valorant	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 8% faster in 1080p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 129% faster in 1440p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 120% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 750% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 54 tests (90%)
Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.24	4.46
Recency	15 August 2020	7 October 2019
Chip lithography	10 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	15 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 107.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has 86.7% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.