Iris Plus Graphics 655 vs Radeon R7 265

Place in the ranking	438	663
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.27	no data
Power efficiency	4.76	20.52
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	3 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores	1024	384
Core clock speed	no data	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	1050 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	59.20	50.40
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	6
TMUs	64	48

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 support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	Ring Bus
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	no 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 type	GDDR5	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	179.2 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Portable 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 Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
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.

R7 265 10.41
+132%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 4.49

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
+163%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1983

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	45−50 +125%	20 −125%
1440p	21−24 +110%	10 −110%
4K	27−30 +125%	12 −125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.31	no data
1440p	7.10	no data
4K	5.52	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +0%	46 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +0%	23 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40 +0%	40 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +0%	17 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10 +0%	10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	15 +0%	15 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 +0%	6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

This is how R7 265 and Iris Plus Graphics 655 compete in popular games:

R7 265 is 125% faster in 1080p
R7 265 is 110% faster in 1440p
R7 265 is 125% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.41	4.49
Recency	13 February 2014	3 April 2018
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	15 Watt

R7 265 has a 131.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Plus Graphics 655, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, 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 655 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.