Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs GeForce GT 630M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 630M with Iris Xe Graphics MAX, including specs and performance data.

GT 630M
2012
1 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 33 Watt
1.36

Iris Xe Graphics MAX outperforms GT 630M by a whopping 268% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1015633
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.9114.08
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameGF108DG1
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 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 cores96768
Core clock speedUp to 800 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors585 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate10.5679.20
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs424
TMUs1648

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x4
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeDDR3\GDDR5LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 128bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz4.3 GB/s
Memory bandwidthUp to 32.0 GB/s68.26 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
DirectX 11.212 APIno data
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
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.

GT 630M 1.36
Iris Xe Graphics MAX 5.01
+268%

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.

GT 630M 537
Iris Xe Graphics MAX 1971
+267%

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:

900p19
−242%
65−70
+242%
Full HD16
−244%
55−60
+244%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Fortnite 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
Valorant 30−35
−253%
120−130
+253%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35
−243%
120−130
+243%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Dota 2 23
−248%
80−85
+248%
Fortnite 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 4
−250%
14−16
+250%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Valorant 30−35
−253%
120−130
+253%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Dota 2 22
−264%
80−85
+264%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Valorant 30−35
−253%
120−130
+253%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−238%
27−30
+238%
Valorant 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−267%
55−60
+267%
Valorant 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

This is how GT 630M and Iris Xe Graphics MAX compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 242% faster in 900p
  • Iris Xe Graphics MAX is 244% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.36 5.01
Recency 22 March 2012 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 25 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics MAX has a 268.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 32% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 630M is a notebook card while Iris Xe Graphics MAX is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
GeForce GT 630M
Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Iris Xe Graphics MAX

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.


3.3 931 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 220 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics MAX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 630M or Iris Xe Graphics MAX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.