Radeon 630 vs GeForce GT 435M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 435M and Radeon 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
630 outperforms GT 435M by a whopping 191% 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 | 1050 | 736 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.78 | 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 | 96 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 650 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) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.40 | 38.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | 1.247 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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 | large | 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 | 2 GB | 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 API with Feature Level 12.1 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 19
−189%
| 55−60
+189%
|
| Full HD | 24
−171%
| 65−70
+171%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−57.6%
|
50−55
+57.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−134%
|
65−70
+134%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−100%
|
30−35
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−57.6%
|
50−55
+57.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−100%
|
30−35
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−57.6%
|
50−55
+57.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−138%
|
30−35
+138%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−680%
|
35−40
+680%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 4−5 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| 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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| 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%
|
This is how GT 435M and Radeon 630 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 630 is 189% faster in 900p
- Radeon 630 is 171% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 630 is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 630 is ahead in 42 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.28 | 3.72 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 13 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
GT 435M has 42.9% lower power consumption.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has a 190.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 435M 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.
