Radeon RX 6750 XT vs Iris Plus Graphics 640

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 640 with Radeon RX 6750 XT, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 640
2017
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
3.87

RX 6750 XT outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 640 by a whopping 1296% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking70347
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data51.85
Power efficiency17.6814.81
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eNavi 22
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 January 2017 (7 years ago)3 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores3842560
Core clock speed300 MHz2150 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors189 million17,200 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate52.80416.0
Floating-point processing power0.8448 TFLOPS13.31 TFLOPS
ROPs664
TMUs48160
Ray Tracing Coresno data40

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 GB12 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data432.0 GB/s
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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.1
Vulkan1.31.3

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. 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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 3.87
RX 6750 XT 54.04
+1296%

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 1489
RX 6750 XT 20819
+1298%

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 2379
RX 6750 XT 48327
+1931%

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 1394
RX 6750 XT 37609
+2599%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 11248
RX 6750 XT 170993
+1420%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 145481
RX 6750 XT 529598
+264%

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 HD22
−641%
163
+641%
1440p6−7
−1317%
85
+1317%
4K3−4
−1533%
49
+1533%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.37
1440pno data6.46
4Kno data11.20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−2257%
165
+2257%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−918%
110−120
+918%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−3033%
90−95
+3033%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−2038%
170−180
+2038%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−1056%
100−110
+1056%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−1714%
127
+1714%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−1213%
100−110
+1213%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−1082%
130−140
+1082%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−852%
210−220
+852%
Hitman 3 9−10
−1156%
110−120
+1156%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−670%
200−210
+670%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−2043%
150−160
+2043%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−1010%
110−120
+1010%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−1313%
210−220
+1313%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−243%
140−150
+243%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−918%
110−120
+918%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−3033%
90−95
+3033%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−2038%
170−180
+2038%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−1056%
100−110
+1056%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−1457%
109
+1457%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−1213%
100−110
+1213%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−1082%
130−140
+1082%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−852%
210−220
+852%
Hitman 3 9−10
−1156%
110−120
+1156%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−670%
200−210
+670%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−2043%
150−160
+2043%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−1010%
110−120
+1010%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−1927%
304
+1927%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−600%
110−120
+600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−243%
140−150
+243%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−918%
110−120
+918%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−3033%
90−95
+3033%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−1056%
100−110
+1056%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−1300%
98
+1300%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−1213%
100−110
+1213%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−852%
210−220
+852%
Hitman 3 9−10
−1156%
110−120
+1156%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−678%
210
+678%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−1633%
260
+1633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
−3275%
135
+3275%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−133%
98
+133%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−1010%
110−120
+1010%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−1500%
110−120
+1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−1283%
80−85
+1283%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1933%
60−65
+1933%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2033%
60−65
+2033%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2900%
60
+2900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1475%
60−65
+1475%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−6550%
260−270
+6550%
Hitman 3 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−1656%
158
+1656%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−2833%
85−90
+2833%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
−833%
220−230
+833%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−1214%
90−95
+1214%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−2850%
55−60
+2850%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Metro Exodus 0−1 75−80

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−1800%
35−40
+1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−3700%
35−40
+3700%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 26
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−3900%
80−85
+3900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−4000%
41
+4000%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−940%
50−55
+940%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 126
+0%
126
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 186
+0%
186
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 79
+0%
79
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 99
+0%
99
+0%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 640 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6750 XT is 641% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6750 XT is 1317% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6750 XT is 1533% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6750 XT is 6550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6750 XT is ahead in 63 tests (90%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.87 54.04
Recency 3 January 2017 3 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 250 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 640 has a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 1296.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 640 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 640 is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6750 XT is a desktop one.


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.


Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640
Iris Plus Graphics 640
AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Radeon RX 6750 XT

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.


3.3 310 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 2594 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6750 XT 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.