Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Radeon 540

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 540 with Iris Plus Graphics 645, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 540
2017
1 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
3.47

Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms 540 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking727672
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency4.9620.53
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameLexaCoffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 April 2017 (7 years ago)7 October 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores384384
Core clock speed1183 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate28.3950.40
Floating-point processing power0.9085 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs166
TMUs2448

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8Ring Bus
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
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 amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width32 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth24 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 Connectors2x DisplayPort 1.4aPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.76.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.31.3

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.

Radeon 540 3.47
Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.31
+24.2%

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.

Radeon 540 1383
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1716
+24.1%

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 HD18−21
−38.9%
25
+38.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.39no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
World of Tanks 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how Radeon 540 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 39% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.47 4.31
Recency 20 April 2017 7 October 2019
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 15 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has a 24.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 645 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 540 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 540 is a desktop card while Iris Plus Graphics 645 is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon 540
Radeon 540
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645
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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 47 votes

Rate Radeon 540 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 122 votes

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.