Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs GeForce GTX 980M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980M and Iris Plus Graphics 645, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980M outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 645 by a whopping 329% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 300 | 672 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.18 | 20.50 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Coffee Lake GT3e |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (10 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 | 1536 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1038 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1127 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.84 | 50.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.659 TFLOPS | 0.8064 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 6 |
| TMUs | 96 | 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 Express 3.0 | 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 | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 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 |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 173
+333%
| 40−45
−333%
|
| Full HD | 71
+184%
| 25
−184%
|
| 1440p | 34
+386%
| 7−8
−386%
|
| 4K | 28
+367%
| 6−7
−367%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 56
+331%
|
12−14
−331%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+600%
|
10−12
−600%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+354%
|
12−14
−354%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+300%
|
10
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+178%
|
23
−178%
|
| Fortnite | 88
+238%
|
24−27
−238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 182
+379%
|
35−40
−379%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+287%
|
14−16
−287%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+600%
|
10−12
−600%
|
| World of Tanks | 230
+211%
|
70−75
−211%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50
+285%
|
12−14
−285%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+152%
|
27
−152%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+191%
|
21−24
−191%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+28.9%
|
35−40
−28.9%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+600%
|
10−12
−600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+467%
|
30−33
−467%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+306%
|
30−35
−306%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 34
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+410%
|
10−11
−410%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 38
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 41
+141%
|
16−18
−141%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 48
+269%
|
12−14
−269%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 21
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
This is how GTX 980M and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980M is 333% faster in 900p
- GTX 980M is 184% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980M is 386% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980M is 367% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 980M is 1800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980M surpassed Iris Plus Graphics 645 in all 60 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.52 | 4.32 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 7 October 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
GTX 980M has a 328.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 980M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 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.
