UHD Graphics 630 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with UHD Graphics 630, including specs and performance data.
Pro 56 outperforms Graphics 630 by a whopping 912% 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 | 227 | 845 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 37 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.86 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.67 | 14.76 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Comet Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (9 years ago) | 1 October 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | 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 | 3584 | 184 |
| Core clock speed | 1138 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 280.0 | 26.45 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.96 TFLOPS | 0.4232 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 3 |
| TMUs | 224 | 23 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | HBM2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
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 | 96
+465%
| 17
−465%
|
| 1440p | 100−110
+900%
| 10
−900%
|
| 4K | 57
+714%
| 7
−714%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.16 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.99 | no data |
| 4K | 7.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+950%
|
8
−950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+511%
|
27
−511%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1220%
|
5
−1220%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+1100%
|
7−8
−1100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+1000%
|
10−11
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+768%
|
19
−768%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1000%
|
6−7
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1500%
|
6
−1500%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+813%
|
14−16
−813%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+721%
|
14−16
−721%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+1229%
|
7−8
−1229%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+311%
|
45−50
−311%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+1100%
|
7−8
−1100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+1000%
|
10−11
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+4025%
|
4
−4025%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+841%
|
29
−841%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1000%
|
6−7
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+410%
|
21
−410%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1100%
|
8−9
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+813%
|
14−16
−813%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+721%
|
14−16
−721%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+1229%
|
7−8
−1229%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+1386%
|
7
−1386%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+2133%
|
3
−2133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+1060%
|
10−11
−1060%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+311%
|
45−50
−311%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+1000%
|
10−11
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1000%
|
6−7
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+437%
|
19
−437%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1100%
|
8−9
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+721%
|
14−16
−721%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+808%
|
12−14
−808%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+540%
|
10−11
−540%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+311%
|
45−50
−311%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+813%
|
14−16
−813%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+1017%
|
6−7
−1017%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+881%
|
21−24
−881%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+1040%
|
5−6
−1040%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+573%
|
24−27
−573%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+715%
|
27−30
−715%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+1043%
|
7−8
−1043%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+1200%
|
6−7
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+1150%
|
4−5
−1150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1380%
|
5−6
−1380%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+287%
|
14−16
−287%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1223%
|
12−14
−1223%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 96
+1271%
|
7
−1271%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
This is how Pro Vega 56 and UHD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 56 is 465% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 56 is 900% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 56 is 714% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 4025% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro Vega 56 surpassed UHD Graphics 630 in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.95 | 2.86 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 1 October 2017 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 15 Watt |
Pro Vega 56 has a 912% higher aggregate performance score.
UHD Graphics 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month, and 1300% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
