Iris Plus Graphics 655 vs Radeon R7 360

Place in the ranking	516	664
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.33	no data
Power efficiency	5.60	20.65
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Tobago	Coffee Lake GT3e
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	3 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	no data

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	768	384
Core clock speed	no data	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1050 MHz
Number of transistors	2,080 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	50.40	50.40
Floating-point processing power	1.613 TFLOPS	0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	6
TMUs	48	48

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	Ring Bus
Length	165 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	no data
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	GDDR5	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	6000 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	112 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
Mantle	+	-

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.

R7 360 8.13
+80.7%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 4.50

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.

R7 360 3125
+80.5%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1731

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.

R7 360 4110
+107%

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1983

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	30−35 +57.9%	19 −57.9%
1440p	18−20 +80%	10 −80%
4K	27−30 +80%	15 −80%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.63	no data
1440p	6.06	no data
4K	4.04	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Elden Ring	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18 +0%	18 +0%
Metro Exodus	11 +0%	11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Dota 2	17 +0%	17 +0%
Elden Ring	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry 5	16 +0%	16 +0%
Fortnite	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +0%	17 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +0%	10 +0%
Metro Exodus	5 +0%	5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 +0%	41 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
World of Tanks	50 +0%	50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Dota 2	28 +0%	28 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +0%	15 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

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

This is how R7 360 and Iris Plus Graphics 655 compete in popular games:

R7 360 is 58% faster in 1080p
R7 360 is 80% faster in 1440p
R7 360 is 80% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.13	4.50
Recency	18 June 2015	3 April 2018
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt

R7 360 has a 80.7% 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 566.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 360 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 655 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 360 is a desktop card while Iris Plus Graphics 655 is a notebook one.

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