GeForce GT 630M vs GTX 950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 950 with GeForce GT 630M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 950
2015
2 GB GDDR5, 90 Watt
13.82
+887%

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by a whopping 887% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking351959
Place by popularity94not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.030.02
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM206N13P-GL/GL2
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 August 2015 (8 years ago)6 December 2011 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 no data
Current price$12.88 (0.1x MSRP)$1121

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 950 has 30050% better value for money than GT 630M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores76896
CUDA cores76896
Core clock speed1024 MHzUp to 800 MHz
Boost clock speed1188 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,940 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)90 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate49.2 billion/secUp to 12.8 billion/sec
Floating-point performance1,825 gflops253.4 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 950 and GeForce GT 630M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length7.938" (20.2 cm)no data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)350 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinsno data
SLI options+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 typeGDDR5DDR3\GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 BitUp to 128bit
Memory clock speed6.6 GB/s1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth105.6 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI++
HDCP++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536Up to 2048x1536
G-SYNC support+no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Rayno data+
GameStream+no data
GeForce ShadowPlay+no data
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+no data
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
DirectX 11.2no data12 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 950 13.82
+887%
GT 630M 1.40

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by 887% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 950 5338
+889%
GT 630M 540

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by 889% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 950 8351
+707%
GT 630M 1035

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by 707% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 950 6208
+763%
GT 630M 719

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by 763% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 950 37454
+572%
GT 630M 5577

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by 572% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 950 16084
+583%
GT 630M 2355

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by 583% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 950 41
+486%
GT 630M 7

GTX 950 outperforms GT 630M by 486% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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:

900p180−190
+847%
19
−847%
Full HD51
+219%
16
−219%
4K21
+950%
2−3
−950%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+1025%
4−5
−1025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24 no data
Far Cry 5 30−35 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40 no data
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 no data
Hitman 3 24−27 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60 no data
Metro Exodus 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+1025%
4−5
−1025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24 no data
Far Cry 5 30−35 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40 no data
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 no data
Hitman 3 24−27 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60 no data
Metro Exodus 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24 no data
Far Cry 5 30−35 no data
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 no data
Far Cry 5 21−24 no data
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 no data
Hitman 3 16−18 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 no data
Metro Exodus 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11 no data
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8 no data
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16 no data
Metro Exodus 12−14 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 no data

This is how GTX 950 and GT 630M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 950 is 847% faster in 900p
  • GTX 950 is 219% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 950 is 950% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.82 1.40
Recency 20 August 2015 6 December 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 90 Watt 33 Watt

The GeForce GTX 950 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 950 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 630M is a notebook 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 GTX 950
GeForce GTX 950
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
GeForce GT 630M

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.


4 1966 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 853 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630M 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.