Radeon 660M vs Iris Plus Graphics 645

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 645 and Radeon 660M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Plus Graphics 645
2019
15 Watt
4.44

660M outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 645 by a whopping 267% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking658326
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency20.5628.28
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameCoffee Lake GT3eRembrandt+
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date7 October 2019 (5 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 year 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 cores384384
Core clock speed300 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1900 MHz
Number of transistorsno data13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+++6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate50.4045.60
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS1.459 TFLOPS
ROPs616
TMUs4824
Ray Tracing Coresno data6

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 x8
WidthIGPIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 DependentPortable Device Dependent

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 Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
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 645 4.44
Radeon 660M 16.29
+267%

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 1715
Radeon 660M 6285
+266%

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 645 2985
Radeon 660M 6743
+126%

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 645 1893
Radeon 660M 4848
+156%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Iris Plus Graphics 645 550
Radeon 660M 1544
+181%

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 HD26
+4%
25
−4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−243%
24
+243%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−109%
21−24
+109%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−767%
26
+767%
Battlefield 5 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−186%
20
+186%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−188%
21−24
+188%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−145%
27−30
+145%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−171%
65−70
+171%
Hitman 3 9−10
−133%
21
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−100%
50−55
+100%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−288%
30−35
+288%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−170%
27−30
+170%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−113%
30−35
+113%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−44.2%
60−65
+44.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−109%
21−24
+109%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−533%
19
+533%
Battlefield 5 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−100%
14
+100%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−188%
21−24
+188%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−145%
27−30
+145%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−171%
65−70
+171%
Hitman 3 9−10
−133%
21
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−100%
50−55
+100%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−288%
30−35
+288%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−170%
27−30
+170%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−120%
33
+120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−62.5%
24−27
+62.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−44.2%
60−65
+44.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−109%
21−24
+109%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−114%
14−16
+114%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−188%
21−24
+188%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−171%
65−70
+171%
Hitman 3 9−10
−111%
18−20
+111%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+22.7%
22
−22.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−80%
27
+80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+6.7%
15
−6.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−44.2%
60−65
+44.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−170%
27−30
+170%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−150%
14−16
+150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−975%
40−45
+975%
Hitman 3 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
−148%
60−65
+148%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Hitman 3 0−1 6−7
Metro Exodus 0−1 8−9

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 645 and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 4% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 23% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 660M is 975% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • Radeon 660M is ahead in 61 test (88%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.44 16.29
Recency 7 October 2019 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 40 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has 166.7% lower power consumption.

Radeon 660M, on the other hand, has a 266.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 645 in performance tests.


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 645
Iris Plus Graphics 645
AMD Radeon 660M
Radeon 660M

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.


2.9 116 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 302 votes

Rate Radeon 660M 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.