GeForce GTX 1630 vs HD Graphics 3000

Place in performance ranking	1147	364
Place by popularity	72	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	12.70
Architecture	Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	Sandy Bridge	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 February 2011 (13 years ago)	28 June 2022 (1 year ago)
Current price	$476	$213

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD Graphics 3000 and GTX 1630 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores	12	512
Core clock speed	350 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	995 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.80	57.12
Floating-point performance	20.4 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on HD Graphics 3000 and GeForce GTX 1630 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.

Interface	PCIe 1.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	4 GB
Memory bus width	64/128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	12 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	no data	96 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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 outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.6
OpenGL	3.1	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	no data	7.5

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.

HD Graphics 3000 0.66

GTX 1630 12.90
+1855%

GeForce GTX 1630 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by 1855% based on our aggregated 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%

HD Graphics 3000 254

GTX 1630 4991
+1865%

GeForce GTX 1630 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by 1865% in Passmark.

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

−1789%

170−180
+1789%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−1733%

55−60
+1733%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −1809%	210−220 +1809%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −1775%	150−160 +1775%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −1809%	210−220 +1809%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −1775%	150−160 +1775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −1809%	210−220 +1809%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −1775%	75−80 +1775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%