Radeon 630 vs GeForce GT 415M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 415M and Radeon 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
630 outperforms GT 415M by a whopping 447% 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 | 1207 | 736 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.31 | 5.66 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 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 | 48 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1218 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 38.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.096 TFLOPS | 1.247 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 112.0 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−85.7%
|
50−55
+85.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−258%
|
65−70
+258%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−183%
|
30−35
+183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−85.7%
|
50−55
+85.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−183%
|
30−35
+183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−85.7%
|
50−55
+85.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−343%
|
30−35
+343%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 630 is 867% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 630 is ahead in 28 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 3.72 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
GT 415M has 316.7% lower power consumption.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has a 447.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M 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.
