Radeon 630 vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Radeon 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms 630 by a whopping 525% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 231 | 706 |
| Place by popularity | 56 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.16 | 5.41 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (5 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 | 2048 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1218 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 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 |
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 |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 63
+530%
| 10−12
−530%
|
| 1440p | 45
+543%
| 7−8
−543%
|
| 4K | 29
+625%
| 4−5
−625%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+633%
|
9−10
−633%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+582%
|
10−12
−582%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+411%
|
9−10
−411%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 115
+576%
|
16−18
−576%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80
+1233%
|
6−7
−1233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 83
+822%
|
9−10
−822%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 87
+569%
|
12−14
−569%
|
| Valorant | 133
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+582%
|
10−12
−582%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+700%
|
12−14
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 73
+248%
|
21−24
−248%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+439%
|
21−24
−439%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+453%
|
16−18
−453%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+983%
|
6−7
−983%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+617%
|
12−14
−617%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+533%
|
9−10
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+356%
|
30−35
−356%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+315%
|
12−14
−315%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+508%
|
12−14
−508%
|
| Valorant | 68
+656%
|
9−10
−656%
|
| World of Tanks | 250−260
+282%
|
65−70
−282%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+582%
|
10−12
−582%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+833%
|
12−14
−833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+262%
|
21−24
−262%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+376%
|
16−18
−376%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+356%
|
30−35
−356%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+989%
|
9−10
−989%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 48
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+367%
|
27−30
−367%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
+482%
|
27−30
−482%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+880%
|
5−6
−880%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+689%
|
9−10
−689%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+500%
|
10−12
−500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 44
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+582%
|
10−12
−582%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+288%
|
16−18
−288%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Radeon 630 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 530% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 543% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 625% 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 RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is ahead in 59 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.43 | 3.75 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 524.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 in performance tests.
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.
