GT 630M vs GT 425M
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
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.
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on GeForce GT 630M and GeForce GT 425M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
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.
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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.
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 Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Rendering quality tests
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GT 630M and GeForce GT 425M. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Both graphics cards satisfy the 69% minimum and 59% recommended requirements of all games known to us.
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
Competitors of GeForce GT 630M from AMD
The nearest GeForce GT 630M's AMD equivalent is Radeon R5 M335, which is faster by 1% and higher by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GT 630M:
Competitors of GeForce GT 425M from AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GT 425M from AMD is Radeon R5 M255, which is nearly equal in speed and higher by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GT 425M:
Advantages of NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
4% better performance in benchmarks
Much newer (6 December 2011 vs 15 August 2010)
Optimus (lowers energy usage by automatically switching between integrated and discrete NVIDIA GPU. Similar to AMD Enduro)
Advantages of NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M
Cheaper ($45 vs $1121)
Lower power consumption (23W vs 33W), meaning that the rival with higher TDP might require a better cooler or other thermal solution.
So, which one is the better GPU?
Technical City couldn't decide between NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
We selected several comparisons of video cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more probable options to consider.