Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs GeForce MX230

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX230 and Iris Plus Graphics 645, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce MX230
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
4.75
+6.7%

MX230 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 645 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking645665
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency32.5620.34
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGP108Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date21 February 2019 (5 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 cores256384
Core clock speed1519 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1582 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate25.3150.40
Floating-point processing power0.81 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs166
TMUs1648

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1502 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth48.06 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
Quick Syncno data+

API 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
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
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.

GeForce MX230 4.75
+6.7%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.45

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.

GeForce MX230 1830
+6.6%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1716

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.

GeForce MX230 3364
+12.7%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 2985

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.

GeForce MX230 2468
+30.3%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1893

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce MX230 748
+36%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 550

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 HD21
−23.8%
26
+23.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 19
+111%
9−10
−111%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 14
+75%
8−9
−75%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+146%
24−27
−146%
Hitman 3 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Metro Exodus 18
+125%
8−9
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 23
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+4.7%
40−45
−4.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 13
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 13
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 12
+50%
8−9
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 12
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 53
+121%
24−27
−121%
Hitman 3 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Metro Exodus 13
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+4.7%
40−45
−4.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 7
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 12
−100%
24−27
+100%
Hitman 3 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+4.7%
40−45
−4.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Hitman 3 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+20%
24−27
−20%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

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
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
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 GeForce MX230 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 24% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 150% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX230 is ahead in 50 tests (79%)
  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • there's a draw in 9 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.75 4.45
Recency 21 February 2019 7 October 2019
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 15 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 6.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% lower power consumption.

Iris Plus Graphics 645, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce MX230 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.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce MX230
GeForce MX230
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645
Iris Plus Graphics 645

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 1387 votes

Rate GeForce MX230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 121 vote

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 645 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.