GeForce GTX 1630 vs GT 335M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 335M with GeForce GTX 1630, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1630 outperforms 335M by a whopping 1256% 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 | 1183 | 442 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.41 | 12.21 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 28 June 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 | 72 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1740 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | 57.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | 1.828 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 233 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 1024 KB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| 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 | Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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:
| Full HD | 16
−1213%
| 210−220
+1213%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1233%
|
400−450
+1233%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1204%
|
300−310
+1204%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1186%
|
180−190
+1186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1233%
|
400−450
+1233%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1186%
|
180−190
+1186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1233%
|
400−450
+1233%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1186%
|
180−190
+1186%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
This is how GT 335M and GTX 1630 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1630 is 1213% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.88 | 11.93 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 28 June 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 75 Watt |
GT 335M has 167.9% lower power consumption.
GTX 1630, on the other hand, has a 1255.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 335M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1630 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.
