Iris Plus Graphics 655 vs Quadro M2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000M with Iris Plus Graphics 655, including specs and performance data.

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.96
+99.6%

M2000M outperforms Iris Plus Graphics 655 by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking487663
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.1620.51
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGM107Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date3 December 2015 (9 years ago)3 April 2018 (6 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 cores640384
Core clock speed1029 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1098 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate43.9250.40
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs166
TMUs4048

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1253 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA5.0-

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.

M2000M 8.96
+99.6%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 4.49

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.

M2000M 3453
+99.5%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 1731

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.

M2000M 5143
+77.7%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 2894

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

M2000M 20567
+67.4%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 12287

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.

M2000M 4157
+110%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 1983

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

M2000M 29795
+108%
Iris Plus Graphics 655 14343

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 HD36
+80%
20
−80%
1440p18−20
+80%
10
−80%
4K12
+0%
12
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+30.4%
46
−30.4%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+78.6%
27−30
−78.6%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+30.4%
23
−30.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+36.4%
40−45
−36.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+50%
40
−50%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+78.6%
27−30
−78.6%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+76.5%
17
−76.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72
+350%
16−18
−350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+36.4%
40−45
−36.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+131%
24−27
−131%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+400%
10
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+100%
15
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+133%
6
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+36.4%
40−45
−36.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+533%
6−7
−533%
Hitman 3 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+119%
24−27
−119%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+125%
4−5
−125%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how M2000M and Iris Plus Graphics 655 compete in popular games:

  • M2000M is 80% faster in 1080p
  • M2000M is 80% faster in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the M2000M is 3500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M2000M surpassed Iris Plus Graphics 655 in all 65 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.96 4.49
Recency 3 December 2015 3 April 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 15 Watt

M2000M has a 99.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Plus Graphics 655, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 655 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Plus Graphics 655 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.

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.


NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655
Iris Plus Graphics 655

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.


3.6 500 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 339 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 655 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.