UHD Graphics P630 vs GeForce GTS 450
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 450 with UHD Graphics P630, including specs and performance data.
Graphics P630 outperforms GTS 450 by an impressive 82% 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 | 805 | 654 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.62 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.38 | 30.53 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Coffee Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 24 May 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 192 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 783 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 25.06 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6013 TFLOPS | 0.4608 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 3 |
| TMUs | 32 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1804 (3608 data rate) MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.7 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| 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:
| 900p | 28
−78.6%
| 50−55
+78.6%
|
| Full HD | 39
−79.5%
| 70−75
+79.5%
|
| 1200p | 27
−66.7%
| 45−50
+66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.31 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−38.8%
|
65−70
+38.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
−15.1%
|
95−100
+15.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−58.1%
|
45−50
+58.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−38.8%
|
65−70
+38.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−58.1%
|
45−50
+58.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−38.8%
|
65−70
+38.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−84%
|
45−50
+84%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−93.5%
|
60−65
+93.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTS 450 and UHD Graphics P630 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics P630 is 79% faster in 900p
- UHD Graphics P630 is 79% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics P630 is 67% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics P630 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics P630 performs better in 56 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.26 | 5.92 |
| Recency | 13 September 2010 | 24 May 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 106 Watt | 15 Watt |
UHD Graphics P630 has a 82% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 607% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics P630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 450 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 450 is a desktop graphics card while UHD Graphics P630 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
