Radeon RX 6300M vs GeForce GT 635M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 635M and Radeon RX 6300M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
6300M outperforms 635M by a whopping 917% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1097 | 445 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.80 | 28.51 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (14 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (4 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | Up to 144 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 675 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 753 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | 115.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3888 TFLOPS | 3.686 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | Up to 192bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 43.2 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 24 | 240−250
+900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 30−35
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 27−30
+1250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 30−35
+1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 55−60
+5600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 27−30
+1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 40−45
+2050%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 75−80
+1775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 55−60
+686%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 45−50
+422%
|
| Valorant | 35−40 | 110−120
+214%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 30−35
+1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 55−60
+5600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 36 | 180−190
+403%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 27−30
+1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | 85−90
+406%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 40−45
+2050%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 75−80
+1775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 55−60
+686%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 27−30
+1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 45−50
+422%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 30−35
+386%
|
| Valorant | 35−40 | 110−120
+214%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 55−60
+5600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 27−30
+1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | 85−90
+406%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 40−45
+2050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 55−60
+686%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 45−50
+422%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 30−35
+386%
|
| Valorant | 35−40 | 110−120
+214%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 75−80
+1775%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 24−27
+733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9 | 95−100
+1113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 90−95
+592%
|
| Valorant | 8−9 | 120−130
+1438%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 30−35
+967%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 18−20
+800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 27−30
+1300%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 24−27
+60%
|
| Valorant | 8−9 | 60−65
+675%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 45−50
+4600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 12−14
+550%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30 | 27−30 |
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 16−18 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18 | 16−18 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
This is how GT 635M and RX 6300M compete in popular games:
- RX 6300M is 900% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6300M is 5600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6300M performs better in 44 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 12.82 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
RX 6300M has a 917% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 85% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6300M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M 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.
