UHD Graphics 630 vs GeForce GTX 285M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M with UHD Graphics 630, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics 630 outperforms GTX 285M by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 947 | 762 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 35 |
| Power efficiency | 1.52 | 14.32 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Comet Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 October 2017 (7 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 cores | 128 | 184 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 26.45 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.384 TFLOPS | 0.4232 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 576 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 3 |
| TMUs | 64 | 23 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | 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 type | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1020 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.103 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 21
−66.7%
| 35−40
+66.7%
|
| Full HD | 29
+81.3%
| 16
−81.3%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−100%
| 10
+100%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−133%
| 7
+133%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7
+16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7
+250%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−125%
|
9
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30
+500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−200%
|
9
+200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16
+77.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30
−13.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−440%
|
27
+440%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−25%
|
15
+25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+21.4%
|
28
−21.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
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 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GTX 285M and UHD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 630 is 67% faster in 900p
- GTX 285M is 81% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 630 is 100% faster in 1440p
- UHD Graphics 630 is 133% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 285M is 21% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 285M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- UHD Graphics 630 is ahead in 45 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (22%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.65 | 3.10 |
| Recency | 1 February 2010 | 1 October 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
UHD Graphics 630 has a 87.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M is a notebook card while UHD Graphics 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
