Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Radeon R5 M240
Aggregated performance score
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Radeon R5 M240 by a whopping 243% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1029 | 652 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Gen. 9.5 Coffee Lake (2019) |
| GPU code name | Jet XT / Sun | Kaby Lake GT3e |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2014 (9 years ago) | 10 July 2019 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 50.40 |
| Floating-point performance | 659.2 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R5 M240 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | Not Listed | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
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 type | Not Listed | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| HD3D | + | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| DualGraphics | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.1.103 |
| Mantle | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Radeon R5 M240 by 243% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Radeon R5 M240 by 285% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Radeon R5 M240 by 88% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Radeon R5 M240 by 99% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 HD | 14
−85.7%
| 26
+85.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
This is how R5 M240 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 86% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 700% faster than the R5 M240.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.16 | 3.98 |
| Recency | 1 September 2014 | 10 July 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
