GeForce GT 630 vs GTS 360M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 360M with GeForce GT 630, including specs and performance data.

GTS 360M
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 38 Watt
1.70

GT 630 outperforms GTS 360M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking936926
Place by popularitynot in top-100100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.08
Power efficiency3.071.84
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGT215GF108
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores9696
Core clock speed550 MHz810 MHz
Number of transistors727 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)38 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate17.6012.96
Floating-point processing power0.2757 TFLOPS0.311 TFLOPS
Gigaflops413no data
ROPs84
TMUs3216

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
SLI options+-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 2000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth57.6 GB/s28.8 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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.15.1
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+2.1

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.

GTS 360M 1.70
GT 630 1.75
+2.9%

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.

GTS 360M 653
GT 630 676
+3.5%

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:

900p18
+0%
18−20
+0%
Full HD23
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.76

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GTS 360M and GT 630 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 900p
  • GTS 360M is 10% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.70 1.75
Recency 7 January 2010 15 May 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 38 Watt 65 Watt

GTS 360M has 71.1% lower power consumption.

GT 630, on the other hand, has a 2.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTS 360M and GeForce GT 630.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 360M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 630 is a desktop 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 GTS 360M
GeForce GTS 360M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630
GeForce GT 630

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.


3.7 30 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 360M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 2756 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 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.