Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Radeon Pro Vega 20

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 20 with Iris Plus Graphics 645, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 20
2018
4 GB HBM2, 100 Watt
13.74
+209%

Pro Vega 20 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 645 by a whopping 209% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking376661
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.5120.54
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameVega 12Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date14 November 2018 (6 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 cores1280384
Core clock speed815 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1283 MHz1050 MHz
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate102.650.40
Floating-point processing power3.284 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs326
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
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width1024 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed740 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth189.4 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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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.

Pro Vega 20 13.74
+209%
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.

Pro Vega 20 5299
+209%
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.

Pro Vega 20 12289
+312%
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.

Pro Vega 20 9044
+378%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1893

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Pro Vega 20 2601
+373%
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 HD57
+128%
25
−128%
4K41
+242%
12−14
−242%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+191%
10−12
−191%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+389%
9−10
−389%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 51
+364%
10−12
−364%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+275%
24−27
−275%
Hitman 3 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+163%
27−30
−163%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+475%
8−9
−475%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 76
+407%
14−16
−407%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+72.1%
40−45
−72.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+191%
10−12
−191%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+389%
9−10
−389%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 46
+318%
10−12
−318%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+275%
24−27
−275%
Hitman 3 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+163%
27−30
−163%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+475%
8−9
−475%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+200%
14−16
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+72.1%
40−45
−72.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+191%
10−12
−191%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+300%
8−9
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+275%
24−27
−275%
Hitman 3 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+163%
27−30
−163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+200%
14−16
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+93.8%
16−18
−93.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+72.1%
40−45
−72.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
Hitman 3 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+240%
24−27
−240%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+219%
21−24
−219%
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

This is how Pro Vega 20 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 20 is 128% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 20 is 242% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 20 is 1650% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro Vega 20 surpassed Iris Plus Graphics 645 in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.74 4.45
Recency 14 November 2018 7 October 2019
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

Pro Vega 20 has a 208.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 20 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 20 is a mobile workstation 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.

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 Pro Vega 20
Radeon Pro Vega 20
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.


3.9 86 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 20 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 116 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.