GeForce GT 555M vs HD Graphics 630
Aggregated performance score
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 555M by 82% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 718 | 887 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.09 | 0.10 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Kaby-Lake-H-GT2 | N12E-GE-B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 6 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Current price | $370 | $310 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 555M has 11% better value for money than HD Graphics 630.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 24 | 144 |
| CUDA cores | no data | Up to 144 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | Up to 753 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 753 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.40 | Up to 16.2 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 441.6 gflops | 388.8 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on HD Graphics 630 and GeForce GT 555M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 | DDR3\DDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | Up to 192 bit/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | Up to 1569 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 50.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | No outputs |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | no data | + |
| 3D Gaming | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 555M by 82% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 555M by 81% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 555M by 31% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms GeForce GT 555M by 51% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 30−35
+57.9%
| 19
−57.9%
|
| Full HD | 15
−66.7%
| 25
+66.7%
|
| 1440p | 64
+82.9%
| 35−40
−82.9%
|
| 4K | 13
+85.7%
| 7−8
−85.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
This is how HD Graphics 630 and GT 555M compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 630 is 57.9% faster than GT 555M in 900p
- GT 555M is 66.7% faster than HD Graphics 630 in 1080p
- HD Graphics 630 is 82.9% faster than GT 555M in 1440p
- HD Graphics 630 is 85.7% faster than GT 555M in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 630 is 600% faster than the GT 555M.
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 555M is 60% faster than the HD Graphics 630.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 630 is ahead in 37 tests (90%)
- GT 555M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (7%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.09 | 1.70 |
| Recency | 1 January 2017 | 6 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 555M in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 630 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 555M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
