GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs Iris Plus Graphics 645
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 645 with GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4080 SUPER outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 645 by a whopping 1895% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 674 | 5 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 38.49 |
| Power efficiency | 20.45 | 19.12 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Coffee Lake GT3e | AD103 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 October 2019 (5 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 10240 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 2550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 45,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | 816.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | 52.22 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 6 | 112 |
| TMUs | 48 | 320 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 310 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 type | System Shared | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1438 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 736.3 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 | 26
−896%
| 259
+896%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−1900%
| 180
+1900%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−2240%
| 117
+2240%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.86 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.55 |
| 4K | no data | 8.54 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
−2900%
|
300
+2900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−2136%
|
246
+2136%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2667%
|
249
+2667%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
−2700%
|
280
+2700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−1059%
|
190−200
+1059%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−2082%
|
240
+2082%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2633%
|
246
+2633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−2082%
|
240
+2082%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−1158%
|
300−350
+1158%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−1620%
|
344
+1620%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−3750%
|
308
+3750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−941%
|
170−180
+941%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−868%
|
500−550
+868%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
−2070%
|
217
+2070%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−1059%
|
190−200
+1059%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1845%
|
214
+1845%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−276%
|
270−280
+276%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2544%
|
238
+2544%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
−1797%
|
550−600
+1797%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1964%
|
227
+1964%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−1158%
|
300−350
+1158%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−1610%
|
342
+1610%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−3463%
|
285
+3463%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1179%
|
179
+1179%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−2738%
|
227
+2738%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−941%
|
170−180
+941%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−4458%
|
547
+4458%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−868%
|
500−550
+868%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−1059%
|
190−200
+1059%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1627%
|
190
+1627%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−2111%
|
199
+2111%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
−1752%
|
500−550
+1752%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1827%
|
212
+1827%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−1510%
|
322
+1510%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−941%
|
170−180
+941%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−2092%
|
263
+2092%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−868%
|
500−550
+868%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−1158%
|
300−350
+1158%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−1513%
|
500−550
+1513%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−4125%
|
169
+4125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−5300%
|
162
+5300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−483%
|
170−180
+483%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−978%
|
450−500
+978%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−9700%
|
190−200
+9700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4167%
|
128
+4167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−2500%
|
208
+2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−2960%
|
306
+2960%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−3057%
|
221
+3057%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1788%
|
150−160
+1788%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2833%
|
85−90
+2833%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−1069%
|
187
+1069%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−1481%
|
300−350
+1481%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6000%
|
61
+6000%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1829%
|
270−280
+1829%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−3525%
|
145
+3525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−6000%
|
305
+6000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−1820%
|
95−100
+1820%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1875%
|
75−80
+1875%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 204
+0%
|
204
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
This is how Iris Plus Graphics 645 and RTX 4080 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 896% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 1900% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 2240% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 4080 SUPER is 9700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER is ahead in 55 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.42 | 88.16 |
| Recency | 7 October 2019 | 8 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 320 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics 645 has 2033.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 4080 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 1894.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 645 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER 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.
