Radeon RX 6900 vs GeForce GT 630 OEM

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 630 OEM and Radeon RX 6900, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 630 OEM
2012
1 GB DDR3, 50 Watt
1.59

RX 6900 outperforms 630 OEM by a whopping 3914% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking100036
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.4519.27
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGK107Navi 21
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date24 April 2012 (14 years ago)28 October 2020 (5 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 cores1924608
Core clock speed875 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2105 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million23,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt255 Watt
Texture fill rate14.00606.2
Floating-point processing power0.336 TFLOPS19.4 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs16288
L1 Cache16 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz16 GB/s
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI++

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2
CUDA3.0-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.59 63.83
Recency 24 April 2012 28 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 255 Watt

GT 630 OEM has 410% lower power consumption.

RX 6900, on the other hand, has a 3914% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 OEM 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 30 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 OEM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 94 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 630 OEM or Radeon RX 6900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.