Iris Plus Graphics 655 vs Radeon R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 and Iris Plus Graphics 655, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M390 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by a whopping 119% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 503 | 708 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 20.74 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | Coffee Lake GT3e |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 3 April 2018 (7 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 cores | 1024 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 50.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.8064 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 6 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | Ring 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System 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 Connectors | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 3.0 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 43
+105%
| 21
−105%
|
| 1440p | 21−24
+110%
| 10
−110%
|
| 4K | 20
+25%
| 16
−25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+164%
|
11
−164%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+150%
|
22
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+61.8%
|
55−60
−61.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+174%
|
50
−174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+109%
|
32
−109%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+190%
|
10
−190%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+129%
|
24−27
−129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+240%
|
10
−240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+200%
|
6
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+182%
|
11
−182%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+61.8%
|
55−60
−61.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+139%
|
28
−139%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+222%
|
9
−222%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+200%
|
6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+61.8%
|
55−60
−61.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+129%
|
24−27
−129%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+119%
|
30−35
−119%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+225%
|
4
−225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+43.8%
|
30−35
−43.8%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+130%
|
40−45
−130%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+175%
|
12
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
This is how R9 M390 and Iris Plus Graphics 655 compete in popular games:
- R9 M390 is 105% faster in 1080p
- R9 M390 is 110% faster in 1440p
- R9 M390 is 25% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M390 is 2100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M390 is ahead in 60 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.70 | 3.98 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 3 April 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
R9 M390 has a 118.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Plus Graphics 655, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 655 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
