NVS 510 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

Place in the ranking	654	915
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.07
Power efficiency	20.73	3.54
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Coffee Lake GT3e	GK107
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	3 April 2018 (6 years ago)	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

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	192
Core clock speed	300 MHz	797 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	50.40	12.75
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	16
TMUs	48	16

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 2.0 x16
Length	no data	160 mm
Width	IGP	1-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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	28.51 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 Connectors

Portable Device Dependent

4x mini-DisplayPort

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 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.1.126
CUDA	-	3.0

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 655 4.49
+151%

NVS 510 1.79

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 655 1733
+150%

NVS 510 692

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	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
1440p	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
4K	16 +167%	6−7 −167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	64.14
1440p	no data	112.25
4K	no data	74.83

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 +156%	18−20 −156%
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 +156%	9−10 −156%
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 +167%	6−7 −167%
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 +160%	10−11 −160%
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 +167%	3−4 −167%
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 +160%	10−11 −160%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

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 NVS 510 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 167% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.49	1.79
Recency	3 April 2018	23 October 2012
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 150.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a desktop card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.

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