Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs AMD Radeon R9 280X
Comparative analysis of Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 and AMD Radeon R9 280X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, API support, Memory, Technologies, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 15% higher boost clock speed: 1150 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 16.7x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 250 Watt
Launch date | 10 July 2019 vs 8 October 2013 |
Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280X
- 42.7x more pipelines: 2048 vs 48
- Around 77% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 688 vs 389
- 3.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6216 vs 1727
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3700 vs 1780
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3700 vs 1780
- Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 2992
- Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 2992
- 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9603 vs 2792
- 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9603 vs 2792
Specifications (specs) | |
Pipelines | 2048 vs 48 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 688 vs 389 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6216 vs 1727 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3700 vs 1780 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3700 vs 1780 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 2992 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 2992 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9603 vs 2792 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9603 vs 2792 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280X
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
Name | Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 | AMD Radeon R9 280X |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6406 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 389 | 688 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1727 | 6216 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1780 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1780 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2992 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2992 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2792 | 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2792 | 9603 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1434.496 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 87.459 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2339 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 645 | AMD Radeon R9 280X | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Intel Gen. 9.5 (Coffee Lake) | GCN 1.0 |
Code name | Kaby Lake GT3e | Tahiti |
Launch date | 10 July 2019 | 8 October 2013 |
Place in performance rating | 811 | 375 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Core clock speed | 300 MHz | |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 48 | 2048 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
Floating-point performance | 4,096 gflops | |
Stream Processors | 2048 | |
Texture fill rate | 128.0 GTexel / s | |
Transistor count | 4,313 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
DisplayPort support | ||
eDP 1.2 signal support | Yes | |
HDMI | ||
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | |
Dual-link DVI support | ||
Eyefinity | ||
VGA | ||
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Memory type | DDR3/DDR4 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | Yes | 0 |
Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | |
Memory bus width | 384 Bit | |
Technologies |
||
H265/HEVC Decode | ||
Quick Sync | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
Length | 275 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |