Radeon Pro 5300 vs Iris Plus Graphics 645

Place in the ranking	661	295
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	20.68	15.19
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code name	Coffee Lake GT3e	Navi 14
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	7 October 2019 (5 years ago)	4 August 2020 (4 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	1280
Core clock speed	300 MHz	1000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	85 Watt
Texture fill rate	50.40	132.0
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	4.224 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	32
TMUs	48	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 x8
Width	no data	IGP
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	4 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	224.0 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

No outputs

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 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	2.0
Vulkan	1.3	1.2

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 4.45

Pro 5300 18.52
+316%

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

Pro 5300 7143
+317%

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

−300%

100−110
+300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
−286%

27−30

+286%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 −309%	45−50 +309%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Battlefield 5	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −275%	30−33 +275%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 −309%	45−50 +309%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −296%	95−100 +296%
Hitman 3	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −307%	110−120 +307%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −275%	30−33 +275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −300%	60−65 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −295%	170−180 +295%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 −309%	45−50 +309%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Battlefield 5	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −275%	30−33 +275%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 −309%	45−50 +309%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −296%	95−100 +296%
Hitman 3	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −307%	110−120 +307%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −275%	30−33 +275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −300%	60−65 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −306%	65−70 +306%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −295%	170−180 +295%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 −309%	45−50 +309%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −275%	30−33 +275%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −296%	95−100 +296%
Hitman 3	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −307%	110−120 +307%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −300%	60−65 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −306%	65−70 +306%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −295%	170−180 +295%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

−300%

40−45
+300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −300%	24−27 +300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −260%	18−20 +260%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Hitman 3	8−9 −275%	30−33 +275%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 −300%	100−105 +300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
−275%

30−33

+275%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
−260%

18−20

+260%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 645 and Pro 5300 compete in popular games:

Pro 5300 is 300% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.45	18.52
Recency	7 October 2019	4 August 2020
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	85 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has 466.7% lower power consumption.

Pro 5300, on the other hand, has a 316.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 5300 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 Radeon Pro 5300 is a workstation one.

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