Radeon RX 9070 XT vs GeForce GT 630

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 630 and Radeon RX 9070 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 630
2012, $100
2 GB DDR3, 65 Watt
1.63
RX 9070 XT
2025, $599
16 GB GDDR6, 304 Watt
64.34
+3847%

9070 XT outperforms GT 630 by a whopping 3847% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking101032
Place by popularitynot in top-10018
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0863.77
Power efficiency1.9516.48
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameGF108Navi 48
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date15 May 2012 (14 years ago)6 March 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 $599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 9070 XT has 79613% better value for money than GT 630.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores964096
Core clock speed810 MHz1660 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2970 MHz
Number of transistors585 million53,900 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt304 Watt
Texture fill rate12.96760.3
Floating-point processing power0.311 TFLOPS48.66 TFLOPS
ROPs4128
TMUs16256
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data64
L0 Cacheno data1 MB
L1 Cache128 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KB8 MB
L3 Cacheno data64 MB

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 2.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length145 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s644.6 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a
HDMI++

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.4
CUDA2.1-
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

GT 630 1.63
RX 9070 XT 64.34
+3847%

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.

GT 630 683
Samples: 6443
RX 9070 XT 26917
+3841%
Samples: 18120

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.

GT 630 810
RX 9070 XT 62189
+7578%

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 HD5−6
−97.6%
206
1440p2−3
−98.3%
116
4K1−273
+7200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p20.002.91
+85.5%
1440p50.005.16
+89.7%
4K99.998.21
+91.8%
  • RX 9070 XT has 85% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 9070 XT has 90% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 9070 XT has 92% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 200−210 200−210
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170
Resident Evil 4 Remake 190−200 190−200

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 200−210 200−210
Battlefield 5 170−180 170−180
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170
Far Cry 5 296 296
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 250−260 250−260
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 350−400 350−400

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 200−210 200−210
Battlefield 5 170−180 170−180
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 300−350
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170
Far Cry 5 285 285
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 250−260 250−260
Grand Theft Auto V 170−180 170−180
Metro Exodus 160−170 160−170
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 497 497
Valorant 350−400 350−400

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180 170−180
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 160−170
Far Cry 5 270 270
Forza Horizon 4 250−260 250−260
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 257 257
Valorant 350−400 350−400

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350 300−350

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 190−200 190−200
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 500−550
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140 130−140
Metro Exodus 110−120 110−120
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 450−500 450−500

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170 160−170
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95 90−95
Far Cry 5 260 260
Forza Horizon 4 220−230 220−230
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 197 197

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 60−65 60−65
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170 160−170
Metro Exodus 70−75 70−75
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 168 168
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130 120−130
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 45−50
Far Cry 5 152 152
Forza Horizon 4 170−180 170−180
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how GT 630 and RX 9070 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 9070 XT is 4020% faster in 1080p
  • RX 9070 XT is 5700% faster in 1440p
  • RX 9070 XT is 7200% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.63 64.34
Recency 15 May 2012 6 March 2025
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 304 Watt

GT 630 has 79% lower power consumption.

RX 9070 XT, on the other hand, has a 3847% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 90% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 9070 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 3211 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 3947 votes

Rate Radeon RX 9070 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 630 or Radeon RX 9070 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.