Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) with Iris Plus Graphics 645, including specs and performance data.

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
2014
1.07

Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) by a whopping 315% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1081658
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data20.50
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 (2014)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameBeemaCoffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date29 April 2014 (10 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 cores128384
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speed850 MHz1050 MHz
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)no data15 Watt
Texture fill rateno data50.40
Floating-point processing powerno data0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPsno data6
TMUsno data48

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).

Interfaceno dataRing Bus
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem 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 Connectorsno dataPortable 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 (FL 12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
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.

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) 1.07
Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.44
+315%

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.

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) 764
Iris Plus Graphics 645 2985
+291%

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.

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) 539
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1893
+251%

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 HD6
−333%
26
+333%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 24−27
Hitman 3 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−108%
27−30
+108%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−114%
14−16
+114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−34.4%
40−45
+34.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 24−27
Hitman 3 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−108%
27−30
+108%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−114%
14−16
+114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−34.4%
40−45
+34.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 24−27
Hitman 3 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−108%
27−30
+108%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−114%
14−16
+114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−34.4%
40−45
+34.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Hitman 3 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 3−4
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−400%
24−27
+400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 2−3

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 2−3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 0−1 2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

This is how R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 333% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 43 tests (78%)
  • there's a draw in 12 tests (22%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.07 4.44
Recency 29 April 2014 7 October 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has a 315% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Plus Graphics 645 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) is a notebook 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 R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
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.


4.4 21 vote

Rate Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) 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.