Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Quadro M4000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000M with Iris Plus Graphics 645, including specs and performance data.

M4000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
15.94
+258%

M4000M outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 645 by a whopping 258% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking338664
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.0920.64
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGM204Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 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 cores1,280384
Core clock speed975 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0050.40
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs646
TMUs8048

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1253 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth160 GB/sno data
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 outputsPortable Device Dependent
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA5.2-

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.

M4000M 15.94
+258%
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.

M4000M 6148
+258%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1715

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.

M4000M 10259
+244%
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.

M4000M 7723
+308%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1893

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 HD68
+162%
26
−162%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+227%
10−12
−227%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+478%
9−10
−478%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+256%
9−10
−256%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+300%
10−12
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+329%
24−27
−329%
Hitman 3 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+200%
27−30
−200%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+588%
8−9
−588%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+247%
14−16
−247%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+88.4%
40−45
−88.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+227%
10−12
−227%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+478%
9−10
−478%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+256%
9−10
−256%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+300%
10−12
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+329%
24−27
−329%
Hitman 3 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+200%
27−30
−200%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+588%
8−9
−588%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+247%
14−16
−247%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+138%
16−18
−138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+88.4%
40−45
−88.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+227%
10−12
−227%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+256%
9−10
−256%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+329%
24−27
−329%
Hitman 3 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+200%
27−30
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+247%
14−16
−247%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+138%
16−18
−138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+88.4%
40−45
−88.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+343%
7−8
−343%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+2025%
4−5
−2025%
Hitman 3 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+267%
9−10
−267%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+292%
24−27
−292%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+286%
21−24
−286%
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%

This is how M4000M and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • M4000M is 162% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M4000M is 2025% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M4000M surpassed Iris Plus Graphics 645 in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.94 4.45
Recency 18 August 2015 7 October 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

M4000M has a 258.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Plus Graphics 645 is a mobile workstation 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.


NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
Quadro M4000M
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645
Iris Plus Graphics 645

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.


4.1 144 votes

Rate Quadro M4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 121 vote

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 645 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.