GeForce GT 630M vs GTX 260M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260M and GeForce GT 630M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 260M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.95

GT 630M outperforms GTX 260M by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11301029
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.032.87
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG92GF108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (16 years ago)22 March 2012 (13 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 cores11296
Core clock speed550 MHzUp to 800 MHz
Number of transistors754 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate30.8010.56
Floating-point processing power0.308 TFLOPS0.2534 TFLOPS
Gigaflops462no data
ROPs164
TMUs5616

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
SLI options2-way-
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 typeGDDR3DDR3\GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 BitUp to 128bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/sUp to 32.0 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMINo outputs
HDMI++
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536Up to 2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray-+
Optimus-+
Power management8.0no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
DirectX 11.2no data12 API
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

GTX 260M 0.95
GT 630M 1.34
+41.1%

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.

GTX 260M 380
GT 630M 534
+40.5%

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.

GTX 260M 4901
+0.7%
GT 630M 4869

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:

900p12−14
−58.3%
19
+58.3%
Full HD29
+81.3%
16
−81.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Fortnite 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Valorant 30−35
−9.7%
30−35
+9.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
−52.2%
35
+52.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Dota 2 14−16
−64.3%
23
+64.3%
Fortnite 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Valorant 30−35
−9.7%
30−35
+9.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Dota 2 14−16
−57.1%
22
+57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Valorant 30−35
−9.7%
30−35
+9.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4
+0%
4
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GTX 260M and GT 630M compete in popular games:

  • GT 630M is 58% faster in 900p
  • GTX 260M is 81% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 630M is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 630M is ahead in 34 tests (72%)
  • there's a draw in 13 tests (28%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.95 1.34
Recency 3 March 2009 22 March 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 33 Watt

GT 630M has a 41.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 97% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 630M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.

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 GTX 260M
GeForce GTX 260M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
GeForce GT 630M

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 16 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 952 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 260M or GeForce GT 630M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.