ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP vs Iris Plus Graphics 640
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 640 with Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP, including specs and performance data.
Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms ATI HD 2600 PRO AGP by a whopping 1234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 714 | 1352 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 17.69 | 0.57 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT3e | RV630 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 28 June 2007 (17 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 | 384 | 120 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 594 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm++ | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.80 | 4.752 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8448 TFLOPS | 0.1426 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 6 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | AGP 8x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 396 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.67 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
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 (12_1) | 10.0 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
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.
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 | 21
+2000%
| 1−2
−2000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 29
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 640 and ATI HD 2600 PRO AGP compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 2000% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.87 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 28 June 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics 640 has a 1234.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Plus Graphics 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 640 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
