GeForce GT 630 OEM vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 655 with GeForce GT 630 OEM, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 655
2018
15 Watt
4.49
+170%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 outperforms GT 630 OEM by a whopping 170% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking658940
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency20.862.31
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameCoffee Lake GT3eGK107
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 April 2018 (6 years ago)24 April 2012 (12 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 cores384192
Core clock speed300 MHz875 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+++28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate50.4014.00
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPS0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs616
TMUs4816

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared891 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.51 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
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 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.31.1.126
CUDA-3.0

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 HD19
+171%
7−8
−171%
1440p12
+200%
4−5
−200%
4K17
+183%
6−7
−183%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+188%
16−18
−188%
Hitman 3 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+180%
10−11
−180%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 23
+188%
8−9
−188%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+175%
16−18
−175%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 40
+186%
14−16
−186%
Hitman 3 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+180%
10−11
−180%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
+183%
6−7
−183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+175%
16−18
−175%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Hitman 3 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 15
+200%
5−6
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+200%
2−3
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+175%
16−18
−175%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GT 630 OEM compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 171% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 200% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 183% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.49 1.66
Recency 3 April 2018 24 April 2012
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 50 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 170.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 OEM in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 630 OEM 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 655
Iris Plus Graphics 655
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630 OEM
GeForce GT 630 OEM

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.


3.6 331 vote

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 655 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 28 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 OEM 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.