Iris Plus Graphics vs Radeon R7 M265

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 M265 with Iris Plus Graphics, including specs and performance data.

R7 M265
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.41

Iris Plus Graphics outperforms R7 M265 by a whopping 233% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking996641
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data21.70
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Generation 11.0 (2019−2021)
GPU code nameTopazIce Lake GT2
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date20 May 2014 (10 years ago)no data (2024 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 cores384512
Compute units6no data
Core clock speed900 MHzno data
Boost clock speed825 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data15 Watt
Texture fill rate23.5232.00
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS1.024 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2432

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x1
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth32 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (12_1)
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listedno data
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 M265 1.41
Iris Plus Graphics 4.70
+233%

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 M265 545
Iris Plus Graphics 1814
+233%

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 HD13
−208%
40−45
+208%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Hitman 3 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−233%
50−55
+233%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−233%
110−120
+233%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Hitman 3 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−233%
50−55
+233%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
−233%
70−75
+233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−233%
110−120
+233%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Hitman 3 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−233%
50−55
+233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−200%
24−27
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−218%
35−40
+218%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−233%
110−120
+233%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Hitman 3 7−8
−200%
21−24
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−200%
21−24
+200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

This is how R7 M265 and Iris Plus Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics is 208% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.41 4.70
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm

Iris Plus Graphics has a 233.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Plus Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M265 is a notebook card while Iris Plus Graphics is a desktop 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.


AMD Radeon R7 M265
Radeon R7 M265
Intel Iris Plus Graphics
Iris Plus Graphics

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.


3 114 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 357 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 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.