Quadro FX 770M vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

Place in the ranking	664	1212
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	20.65	1.12
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Coffee Lake GT3e	G96
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	3 April 2018 (6 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$527

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	32
Core clock speed	300 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	50.40	8.000
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	8
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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	Ring Bus	MXM-II

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	25.6 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)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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 4.50
+689%

FX 770M 0.57

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 1731
+687%

FX 770M 220

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 +850%	2−3 −850%
1440p	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
4K	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	263.50
1440p	no data	527.00
4K	no data	527.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Elden Ring	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	18 +200%	6−7 −200%
Metro Exodus	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Dota 2	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Elden Ring	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry 5	16 +129%	7−8 −129%
Fortnite	24−27	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Metro Exodus	5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 +413%	8−9 −413%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
World of Tanks	50 +194%	16−18 −194%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Dota 2	28 +833%	3−4 −833%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +388%	8−9 −388%
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4	0−1
Elden Ring	5−6	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
World of Tanks	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6	0−1
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Valorant	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Elden Ring	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
World of Tanks	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	12 −25%	14−16 +25%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Fortnite	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Valorant	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and FX 770M compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 850% faster in 1080p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 900% faster in 1440p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 1400% faster in 4K

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 3100% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 770M is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 655 is ahead in 30 tests (91%)
FX 770M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.50	0.57
Recency	3 April 2018	14 August 2008
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 689.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 770M is a mobile workstation one.

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