RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Iris Plus Graphics 645

Place in the ranking	669	76
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	87.11
Power efficiency	20.50	44.58
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Coffee Lake GT3e	AD107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	7 October 2019 (5 years ago)	12 February 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$649

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 cores	384	2816
Core clock speed	300 MHz	1620 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	2130 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	50.40	187.4
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	12 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	48
TMUs	48	88
Tensor Cores	no data	88
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	22

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 x8
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	2-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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	16 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	256.0 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 Connectors

Portable Device Dependent

4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

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.

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

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 645 4.41

RTX 2000 Ada Generation 44.75
+915%

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 645 1716

RTX 2000 Ada Generation 17419
+915%

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

−900%

250−260
+900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

2.60

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −900%	190−200 +900%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 −900%	80−85 +900%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −900%	140−150 +900%
Valorant	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Dota 2	10 −900%	100−105 +900%
Far Cry 5	23 −900%	230−240 +900%
Fortnite	24−27 −900%	260−270 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −900%	190−200 +900%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 −900%	80−85 +900%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −900%	140−150 +900%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −821%	350−400 +821%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −900%	140−150 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −900%	150−160 +900%
Valorant	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
World of Tanks	70−75 −914%	750−800 +914%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Dota 2	27 −900%	270−280 +900%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −900%	230−240 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −900%	190−200 +900%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 −900%	80−85 +900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −821%	350−400 +821%
Valorant	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 −900%	290−300 +900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
World of Tanks	30−35 −838%	300−310 +838%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −900%	100−105 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −900%	70−75 +900%
Valorant	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Dota 2	16−18 −900%	160−170 +900%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −900%	160−170 +900%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −900%	160−170 +900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Dota 2	16−18 −900%	160−170 +900%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Fortnite	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%
Valorant	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 645 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.41	44.75
Recency	7 October 2019	12 February 2024
Chip lithography	14 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	70 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has 366.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 914.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation 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 RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.