RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile vs GeForce GT 630M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 630M with RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GT 630M
2012
1 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 33 Watt
1.40

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms GT 630M by a whopping 2731% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1006111
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.9223.71
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGF108no data
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)21 March 2023 (1 year 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 cores963072
Core clock speedUp to 800 MHzno data
Number of transistors585 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt115 Watt (35 - 115 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate10.56no data
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs16no 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)no data

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\GDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 128bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz16000 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 32.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

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 data
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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate
DirectX 11.212 APIno data
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
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. 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.

GT 630M 1.40
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 39.64
+2731%

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 538
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 15279
+2740%

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.

GT 630M 1035
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 28910
+2693%

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.

GT 630M 4869
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 37844
+677%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 630M 719
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 21379
+2873%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 630M 5577
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 115230
+1966%

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
−2532%
500−550
+2532%
Full HD16
−2713%
450−500
+2713%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2567%
400−450
+2567%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2650%
220−230
+2650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2627%
900−950
+2627%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2567%
400−450
+2567%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2650%
220−230
+2650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
−2567%
400−450
+2567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2627%
900−950
+2627%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2567%
400−450
+2567%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2650%
220−230
+2650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2627%
900−950
+2627%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2614%
190−200
+2614%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−2700%
140−150
+2700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−2614%
190−200
+2614%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−2650%
110−120
+2650%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%

This is how GT 630M and RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 2532% faster in 900p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 2713% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.40 39.64
Recency 22 March 2012 21 March 2023
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 115 Watt

GT 630M has 248.5% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 2731.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 630M is a notebook graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.3 906 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 19 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.