Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs GeForce GTX 480M

Place in the ranking	693	672
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.90	20.53
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GF100	Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	25 May 2010 (14 years ago)	7 October 2019 (5 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	352	384
Core clock speed	425 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1050 MHz
Number of transistors	3,100 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.70	50.40
Floating-point processing power	0.5984 TFLOPS	0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	6
TMUs	44	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	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
SLI options	+	-

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	1200 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	76.8 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	Portable Device Dependent
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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.

GTX 480M 4.06

Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.31
+6.2%

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.

GTX 480M 1617

Iris Plus Graphics 645 1716
+6.1%

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.

GTX 480M 2185

Iris Plus Graphics 645 2985
+36.6%

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:

900p	33 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%
Full HD	39 +56%	25 −56%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 5	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Valorant	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Dota 2	12−14 +30%	10 −30%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −4.5%	23 +4.5%
Fortnite	24−27 −8.3%	24−27 +8.3%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 5	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −5.6%	35−40 +5.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
Valorant	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
World of Tanks	70−75 −4.2%	70−75 +4.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Dota 2	12−14 −108%	27 +108%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −4.5%	21−24 +4.5%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 5	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −5.6%	35−40 +5.6%
Valorant	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 −3.6%	27−30 +3.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
World of Tanks	30−33 −6.7%	30−35 +6.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Valorant	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Fortnite	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Valorant	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

This is how GTX 480M and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 6% faster in 900p
GTX 480M is 56% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 480M is 30% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 108% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 480M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 41 test (67%)
there's a draw in 19 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.06	4.31
Recency	25 May 2010	7 October 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has a 6.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 480M and Iris Plus Graphics 645.

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