UHD Graphics 630 vs GeForce 9800M GTX

Place in the ranking	1069	764
Place by popularity	not in top-100	35
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	no data
Power efficiency	1.08	14.23
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	G92	Comet Lake GT2
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	15 July 2008 (16 years ago)	1 October 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$328.50	no data

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 cores	112	184
CUDA cores per GPU	112	no data
Core clock speed	500 MHz	350 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1150 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	28.00	26.45
Floating-point processing power	0.28 TFLOPS	0.4232 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	420	no data
ROPs	16	3
TMUs	56	23

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
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x1
Width	no data	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	51.2 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	+

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 Connectors

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 compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.103
CUDA	+	-

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.

9800M GTX 1.18

UHD Graphics 630 3.10
+163%

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.

9800M GTX 454

UHD Graphics 630 1192
+163%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

9800M GTX 4825

UHD Graphics 630 7704
+59.7%

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	5−6 −200%	15 +200%
1440p	3−4 −233%	10 +233%
4K	2−3 −250%	7 +250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	65.70	no data
1440p	109.50	no data
4K	164.25	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5 +66.7%
Elden Ring	0−1	6−7

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −700%	8 +700%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −62.5%	13 +62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −50%	9 +50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Dota 2	0−1	11
Elden Ring	0−1	6−7
Far Cry 5	10−11 −30%	13 +30%
Fortnite	5−6 −240%	16−18 +240%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −50%	12 +50%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −600%	7 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −154%	33 +154%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −83.3%	10−12 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +40%	5 −40%
World of Tanks	24−27 −11.5%	29 +11.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Dota 2	0−1	19
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −37.5%	11 +37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −115%	27−30 +115%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −214%	21−24 +214%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	2−3
World of Tanks	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Valorant	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	2−3
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +129%	7 −129%
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4
Valorant	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Metro Exodus	8 +0%	8 +0%
Valorant	8 +0%	8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Valorant

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Elden Ring

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Fortnite	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1

This is how 9800M GTX and UHD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:

UHD Graphics 630 is 200% faster in 1080p
UHD Graphics 630 is 233% faster in 1440p
UHD Graphics 630 is 250% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 9800M GTX is 129% faster.
in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

9800M GTX is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
UHD Graphics 630 is ahead in 32 tests (63%)
there's a draw in 17 tests (33%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.18	3.10
Recency	15 July 2008	1 October 2017
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt

UHD Graphics 630 has a 162.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTX in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTX is a notebook card while UHD Graphics 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.