Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Radeon Vega Frontier Edition

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Vega Frontier Edition with Iris Plus Graphics 645, including specs and performance data.

Vega Frontier Edition
2017
16 GB HBM2, 300 Watt
30.72
+637%

Vega Frontier Edition outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 645 by a whopping 637% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking196702
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.02no data
Power efficiency7.8021.18
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameVega 10Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date27 June 2017 (8 years ago)7 October 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores4096384
Core clock speed1382 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1600 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate409.650.40
Floating-point processing power13.11 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs646
TMUs25648

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount16 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width2048 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed945 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth483.8 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.3

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.

Vega Frontier Edition 30.72
+637%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.17

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.

Vega Frontier Edition 12872
+636%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1749

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 HD190−200
+631%
26
−631%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.26no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
God of War 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
God of War 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
God of War 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
God of War 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
God of War 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
God of War 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how Vega Frontier Edition and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • Vega Frontier Edition is 631% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.72 4.17
Recency 27 June 2017 7 October 2019
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 15 Watt

Vega Frontier Edition has a 636.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 1900% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is a workstation graphics card while Iris Plus Graphics 645 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 Vega Frontier Edition
Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
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.


3.4 29 votes

Rate Radeon Vega Frontier Edition 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

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Vega Frontier Edition or Iris Plus Graphics 645, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.