Iris Plus Graphics 650 vs Radeon R9 255

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Iris Plus Graphics 650 vs Radeon R9 255 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Iris Plus Graphics 650 vs Radeon R9 255: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

Iris Plus Graphics 650

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 15W instead of 190W, a 175W reduction.
✅More future proof: Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2017 hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 10.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $139 MSRP).

Radeon R9 255

2014

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 10.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($139 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs Unknown).
✅Iris Plus Graphics 650 is already obsolete for modern gaming, so Radeon R9 255 is the less risky modern option long term.

Trade-offs

❌2014 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌1166.7% higher power demand at 190W vs 15W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Radeon R9 255 is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 0.1% in PassMark G3D (1,501 vs 1,500), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon R9 255 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 2 GB vs Unknown of VRAM and the newer upscaling stack, FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon R9 255 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup.

Iris Plus Graphics 650 vs Radeon R9 255 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Iris Plus Graphics 650

The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in January 3 2017. It features the Generation 9.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 1150 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 14 nm++ process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,500 points.

Radeon R9 255

The Radeon R9 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,501 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Iris Plus Graphics 650 scores 1,500 and the Radeon R9 255 reaches 1,501 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is built on Generation 9.5 while the Radeon R9 255 uses GCN 3.0, both on 14 nm++ vs 28 nm. Shader units: 384 (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 255). Raw compute: 0.8832 TFLOPS (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 255).

Feature	Iris Plus Graphics 650	Radeon R9 255
G3D Mark Score	1,500	1,501
Architecture	Generation 9.5	GCN 3.0
Process Node	14 nm++	28 nm
Shading Units	384	1792+367%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.8832 TFLOPS	3.29 TFLOPS+273%
ROPs	6	32+433%
TMUs	48	112+133%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Iris Plus Graphics 650	Radeon R9 255
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Iris Plus Graphics 650 has 0 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 255 carries 2 GB. Radeon R9 255 gives you 100+% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is System on the Iris Plus Graphics 650 and 128-bit on the Radeon R9 255.

Feature	Iris Plus Graphics 650	Radeon R9 255
VRAM Capacity	Shared System RAM	2 GB
Memory Type	Shared	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	System	Unknown
Bus Width	System	128-bit

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Iris Plus Graphics 650 draws 15W versus the Radeon R9 255's 190W — a 170.7% difference. The Iris Plus Graphics 650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 400W (Radeon R9 255). Power connectors: Integrated vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	Iris Plus Graphics 650	Radeon R9 255
TDP	15W-92%	190W
Recommended PSU	1W-100%	400W
Power Connector	Integrated	1x 6-pin
Length	0mm	—
Height	0mm	—
Slots	0	—
Temp (Load)	85	—
Perf/Watt	100.0+1166%	7.9

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Iris Plus Graphics 650 came in at $0, while the Radeon R9 255 launched at $139. On MSRP, Iris Plus Graphics 650 was 100+% cheaper ($139 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): Infinity (Iris Plus Graphics 650) vs 10.8 (Radeon R9 255) — the Iris Plus Graphics 650 offers Infinity% better value. The newer card here is Iris Plus Graphics 650 (2017 vs 2014).

Feature	Iris Plus Graphics 650	Radeon R9 255
MSRP	$0-100%	$139
Performance per Dollar	Infinity	10.8
Codename	Kaby Lake GT3e	Tonga
Release	January 3 2017	September 2 2014
Ranking	#718	#365

Search Iris Plus Graphics 650 on Amazon

Search Radeon R9 255 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.