Radeon 630 vs GeForce GTX 780M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780M SLI and Radeon 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
780M SLI outperforms 630 by a whopping 376% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 340 | 757 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.90 | 5.79 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | N14E-GTX | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 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 | 3072 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1218 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7080 Million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.247 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 2x 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 99
+450%
| 18−21
−450%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+593%
|
14−16
−593%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+413%
|
14−16
−413%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+593%
|
14−16
−593%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+421%
|
14−16
−421%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+445%
|
10−12
−445%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+345%
|
21−24
−345%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+164%
|
50−55
−164%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+413%
|
14−16
−413%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+593%
|
14−16
−593%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 257
+278%
|
65−70
−278%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+203%
|
35−40
−203%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+421%
|
14−16
−421%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+445%
|
10−12
−445%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+345%
|
21−24
−345%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+470%
|
10−11
−470%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+518%
|
10−12
−518%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+325%
|
12−14
−325%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+164%
|
50−55
−164%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+413%
|
14−16
−413%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+203%
|
35−40
−203%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+421%
|
14−16
−421%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+445%
|
10−12
−445%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+311%
|
18−20
−311%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+325%
|
12−14
−325%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+164%
|
50−55
−164%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+345%
|
21−24
−345%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+359%
|
27−30
−359%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+442%
|
30−35
−442%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+346%
|
35−40
−346%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+486%
|
7−8
−486%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+500%
|
7−8
−500%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+120%
|
14−16
−120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+447%
|
18−20
−447%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+433%
|
12−14
−433%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
This is how GTX 780M SLI and Radeon 630 compete in popular games:
- GTX 780M SLI is 450% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 780M SLI is 1500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 780M SLI surpassed Radeon 630 in all 58 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.72 | 3.72 |
| Recency | 30 May 2013 | 13 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 780M SLI has a 376.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 780M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
