Radeon 630 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon 630, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms 630 by a whopping 448% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 264 | 703 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 39.45 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 18.84 | 5.15 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 cores | 896 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | 1218 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | 38.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.984 TFLOPS | 1.247 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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.
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.
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:
| Full HD | 67
+458%
| 12−14
−458%
|
| 1440p | 37
+517%
| 6−7
−517%
|
| 4K | 24
+500%
| 4−5
−500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.22 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.03 | no data |
| 4K | 6.21 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 53
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 79
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 52
+550%
|
8−9
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 80
+789%
|
9−10
−789%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 229
+1105%
|
18−20
−1105%
|
| Hitman 3 | 49
+513%
|
8−9
−513%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 292
+1117%
|
24−27
−1117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 101
+1920%
|
5−6
−1920%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 77
+863%
|
8−9
−863%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 115
+785%
|
12−14
−785%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 224
+460%
|
40−45
−460%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 83
+730%
|
10−11
−730%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 72
+1100%
|
6−7
−1100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 46
+475%
|
8−9
−475%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+643%
|
7−8
−643%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 56
+522%
|
9−10
−522%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 201
+958%
|
18−20
−958%
|
| Hitman 3 | 47
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 260
+983%
|
24−27
−983%
|
| Metro Exodus | 71
+1320%
|
5−6
−1320%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55
+588%
|
8−9
−588%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 74
+469%
|
12−14
−469%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 206
+415%
|
40−45
−415%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+242%
|
18−20
−242%
|
| Hitman 3 | 41
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60
+150%
|
24−27
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 62
+377%
|
12−14
−377%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 54
+575%
|
8−9
−575%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+600%
|
6−7
−600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 36
+620%
|
5−6
−620%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 27
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 43
+438%
|
8−9
−438%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+486%
|
7−8
−486%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45
+463%
|
8−9
−463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 145
+625%
|
20−22
−625%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Hitman 3 | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 41
+486%
|
7−8
−486%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 26
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and Radeon 630 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 458% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 517% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 2900% faster.
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 630 is 90% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 60 tests (97%)
- Radeon 630 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.40 | 3.72 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 1650 has a 448.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop card while Radeon 630 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
