Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Radeon 530

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 530 and Iris Plus Graphics 645, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Radeon 530
2017
4 GB DDR3/GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.66

Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms 530 by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking811665
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.6520.34
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameWestonCoffee Lake GT3e
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date18 April 2017 (7 years ago)7 October 2019 (5 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 cores384384
Core clock speed730 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1024 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate24.5850.40
Floating-point processing power0.7864 TFLOPS0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs86
TMUs2448

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8Ring 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 typeDDR3/GDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

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.

Radeon 530 2.66
Iris Plus Graphics 645 4.45
+67.3%

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.

Radeon 530 1026
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1716
+67.3%

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.

Radeon 530 2327
Iris Plus Graphics 645 2985
+28.3%

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.

Radeon 530 1542
Iris Plus Graphics 645 1893
+22.8%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Radeon 530 443
Iris Plus Graphics 645 550
+24.2%

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 HD15
−73.3%
26
+73.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4
Battlefield 5 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry 5 10
+25%
8−9
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 12
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Hitman 3 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−28.6%
27−30
+28.6%
Metro Exodus 13
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 13
+30%
10−11
−30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+20%
14−16
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−13.2%
40−45
+13.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4
Battlefield 5 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+33.3%
24−27
−33.3%
Hitman 3 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−28.6%
27−30
+28.6%
Metro Exodus 5
−60%
8−9
+60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−13.2%
40−45
+13.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Hitman 3 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−28.6%
27−30
+28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−167%
16−18
+167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−13.2%
40−45
+13.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−66.7%
24−27
+66.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Radeon 530 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 73% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 530 is 63% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 167% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Radeon 530 is ahead in 8 tests (14%)
  • Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 47 tests (80%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.66 4.45
Recency 18 April 2017 7 October 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 15 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 645 has a 67.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 645 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 530 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon 530
Radeon 530
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645
Iris Plus Graphics 645

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.


3.2 729 votes

Rate Radeon 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 121 vote

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 645 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.