HD Graphics P630 vs ATI Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 and HD Graphics P630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD Graphics P630 outperforms HD 4850 by a moderate 17% 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 | 893 | 836 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.23 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.73 | 14.85 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Kaby Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (18 years ago) | 5 August 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | 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 | 800 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 3 |
| TMUs | 40 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 160 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1740 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
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 | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.103 |
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
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
| Full HD | 40
−12.5%
| 45−50
+12.5%
|
| 1200p | 19
−10.5%
| 21−24
+10.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−14.6%
|
55−60
+14.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−7.1%
|
45−50
+7.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−22.2%
|
21−24
+22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−13%
|
24−27
+13%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−25%
|
24−27
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 4850 and HD Graphics P630 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics P630 is 7% faster in 900p
- HD Graphics P630 is 13% faster in 1080p
- HD Graphics P630 is 11% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics P630 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics P630 performs better in 50 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.46 | 2.88 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 5 August 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1740 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 15 Watt |
HD Graphics P630 has a 17% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 240% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 293% more advanced lithography process, and 633% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics P630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 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.
