Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Radeon R5 M240

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M240 and Iris Plus Graphics 645, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 M240
2014
0 MB Not Listed
1.17

Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms R5 M240 by a whopping 281% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1073666
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data20.47
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameJetCoffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date18 September 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 cores320384
Core clock speed1000 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1050 MHz
Number of transistors690 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)no data15 Watt
Texture fill rate20.6050.40
Floating-point processing power0.6592 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs86
TMUs2048

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).

Bus supportNot Listedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8Ring Bus

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 typeNot ListedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount0 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus widthNot ListedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 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
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed3.0
Vulkan-1.3
Mantle+-

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 M240 1.17
Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.46
+281%

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.

R5 M240 450
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1716
+281%

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 M240 1588
Iris Plus Graphics 645 2985
+88%

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 M240 949
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1893
+99.5%

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 HD14
−78.6%
25
+78.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%
Elden Ring 0−1 10−11

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−138%
18−20
+138%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%
Dota 2 0−1 10
Elden Ring 0−1 10−11
Far Cry 5 10−11
−130%
23
+130%
Fortnite 4−5
−550%
24−27
+550%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−138%
18−20
+138%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−192%
35−40
+192%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−114%
14−16
+114%
World of Tanks 24−27
−185%
70−75
+185%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%
Dota 2 0−1 27
Far Cry 5 10−11
−120%
21−24
+120%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−138%
18−20
+138%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−192%
35−40
+192%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 3−4
World of Tanks 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Valorant 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 3−4
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 0−1 5−6
Valorant 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R5 M240 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 79% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 1300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 37 tests (70%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.17 4.46
Recency 18 September 2014 7 October 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has a 281.2% 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 M240 in performance tests.


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 M240
Radeon R5 M240
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.


3.5 55 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M240 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.