GeForce GT 735M vs HD Graphics 630

Place in the ranking	759	938
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	14.21	3.51
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT2	GK208
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 January 2017 (7 years ago)	1 April 2013 (11 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	192	384
Core clock speed	350 MHz	575 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	889 MHz
Number of transistors	189 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	33 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	18.40
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.4416 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	8
TMUs	24	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).

Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	Ring Bus	PCIe 3.0 x8

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	DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	2 GB
Standard memory configuration	no data	DDR3
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	14.4 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	Portable Device Dependent	No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
LVDS signal support	no data	Up to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display support	no data	Up to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
HDMI	-	+
HDCP content protection	-	+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	-	+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	-	+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	-	+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	-	+
Optimus	-	+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	-	+
Quick Sync	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 API
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	1.1.126
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.

HD Graphics 630 3.11
+84%

GT 735M 1.69

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.

HD Graphics 630 1197
+84.2%

GT 735M 650

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.

HD Graphics 630 1729
+0.9%

GT 735M 1713

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.

HD Graphics 630 7685
+35.1%

GT 735M 5688

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.

HD Graphics 630 1067
+4.3%

GT 735M 1024

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.

HD Graphics 630 9715
+43.8%

GT 735M 6757

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	30−35 +76.5%	17 −76.5%
Full HD	15 −33.3%	20 +33.3%
1440p	64 +113%	30−35 −113%
4K	19 +90%	10−12 −90%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5 −20%	6−7 +20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	8 +100%	4−5 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	20 +300%	5−6 −300%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Metro Exodus	10 +100%	5−6 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +14.7%	30−35 −14.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Metro Exodus	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +14.7%	30−35 −14.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +14.7%	30−35 −14.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −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	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

This is how HD Graphics 630 and GT 735M compete in popular games:

HD Graphics 630 is 76% faster in 900p
GT 735M is 33% faster in 1080p
HD Graphics 630 is 113% faster in 1440p
HD Graphics 630 is 90% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 630 is 300% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 735M is 20% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD Graphics 630 is ahead in 47 tests (92%)
GT 735M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.11	1.69
Recency	1 January 2017	1 April 2013
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	33 Watt

HD Graphics 630 has a 84% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 120% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 735M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.