GeForce GT 630 vs Arc 8-Core iGPU

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc 8-Core iGPU with GeForce GT 630, including specs and performance data.

Arc 8-Core iGPU
2023
18.53
+953%

Arc 8-Core iGPU outperforms GT 630 by a whopping 953% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking302930
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.08
Power efficiencyno data1.87
ArchitectureXe LPG (2023)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameMeteor Lake iGPUGF108
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date14 December 2023 (1 year ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores896
Core clock speedno data810 MHz
Boost clock speed2300 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data585 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data65 Watt
Texture fill rateno data12.96
Floating-point processing powerno data0.311 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data16

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_212 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Arc 8-Core iGPU 18.53
+953%
GT 630 1.76

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.

Arc 8-Core iGPU 8561
+957%
GT 630 810

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 HD36
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
1440p20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
4K15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data33.33
1440pno data99.99
4Kno data99.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+1083%
6−7
−1083%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
Metro Exodus 40
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+975%
4−5
−975%
Valorant 75−80
+971%
7−8
−971%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Counter-Strike 2 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Dota 2 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Far Cry 5 34
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
Fortnite 100−105
+1011%
9−10
−1011%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Metro Exodus 29
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+958%
12−14
−958%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+975%
4−5
−975%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+1060%
5−6
−1060%
Valorant 75−80
+971%
7−8
−971%
World of Tanks 220−230
+957%
21−24
−957%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Counter-Strike 2 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+967%
6−7
−967%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+958%
12−14
−958%
Valorant 75−80
+971%
7−8
−971%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+1093%
14−16
−1093%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
World of Tanks 120−130
+958%
12−14
−958%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+1167%
3−4
−1167%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Valorant 45−50
+1075%
4−5
−1075%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Dota 2 9 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 9 0−1
Metro Exodus 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+1000%
5−6
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Fortnite 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Valorant 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

This is how Arc 8-Core iGPU and GT 630 compete in popular games:

  • Arc 8-Core iGPU is 1100% faster in 1080p
  • Arc 8-Core iGPU is 1900% faster in 1440p
  • Arc 8-Core iGPU is 1400% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.53 1.76
Recency 14 December 2023 15 May 2012
Chip lithography 5 nm 40 nm

Arc 8-Core iGPU has a 952.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc 8-Core iGPU is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc 8-Core iGPU is a notebook card while GeForce GT 630 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Arc 8-Core iGPU
Arc 8-Core iGPU
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630
GeForce GT 630

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.


4.2 52 votes

Rate Arc 8-Core iGPU on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 2806 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.