Iris Plus Graphics 640 vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Iris Plus Graphics 640, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.67
+172%

R7 265 outperforms Plus Graphics 640 by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking490769
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.70no data
Power efficiency4.9518.24
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code namePitcairnKaby Lake GT3e
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)3 January 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores1024384
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1100 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2052.80
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS0.8448 TFLOPS
ROPs326
TMUs6448
L1 Cache256 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno data

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-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 typeGDDR5DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount4 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1400 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-1.3

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R7 265 9.67
+172%
Iris Plus Graphics 640 3.56

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.

R7 265 5220
+275%
Iris Plus Graphics 640 1394

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 HD55−60
+162%
21
−162%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.71no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+0%
6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R7 265 and Iris Plus Graphics 640 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 162% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.67 3.56
Recency 13 February 2014 3 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 15 Watt

R7 265 has a 171.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Plus Graphics 640, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 640 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while Iris Plus Graphics 640 is a notebook one.

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 R7 265
Radeon R7 265
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640
Iris Plus Graphics 640

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.


3.2 384 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 318 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or Iris Plus Graphics 640, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.