Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	437	660
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.46	no data
Power efficiency	9.55	20.51
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GM206	Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	7 October 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$437.75	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768	384
Core clock speed	796 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	1050 MHz
Number of transistors	2,940 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	50.40
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	6
TMUs	48	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	PCIe 3.0 x16	Ring Bus
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	128 Bit	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	no data	+

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	4x DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.2	-

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.

Quadro M2000 10.36
+133%

Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.45

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.

Quadro M2000 3995
+133%

Iris Plus Graphics 645 1715

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

60−65
+131%

−131%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.30

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

4K
High Preset

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

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	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

Quadro M2000 is 131% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.36	4.45
Recency	8 April 2016	7 October 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 132.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while Iris Plus Graphics 645 is a desktop one.

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