Quadro FX 2700M vs HD Graphics 630

Place in the ranking	764	1122
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	14.29	1.01
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT2	G94
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 January 2017 (8 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	48
Core clock speed	350 MHz	530 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	12.72
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	16
TMUs	24	24

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	no data	large
Interface	Ring Bus	MXM-HE

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	799 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	51.14 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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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
+227%

FX 2700M 0.95

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
+227%

FX 2700M 366

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
+175%

FX 2700M 2799

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	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
1440p	64 +256%	18−20 −256%
4K	13 +333%	3−4 −333%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	24.99
1440p	no data	5.55
4K	no data	33.32

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4	0−1
Metro Exodus	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Valorant	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Dota 2	12 +300%	3−4 −300%
Far Cry 5	18 +100%	9−10 −100%
Fortnite	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	4 +300%	1−2 −300%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	28 +155%	10−12 −155%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 −50%	6−7 +50%
Valorant	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
World of Tanks	55−60 +139%	21−24 −139%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Dota 2	22 +267%	6−7 −267%
Far Cry 5	10 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +87.5%	8−9 −87.5%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +155%	10−12 −155%
Valorant	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Valorant	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	3	0−1
Fortnite	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

This is how HD Graphics 630 and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

HD Graphics 630 is 250% faster in 1080p
HD Graphics 630 is 256% faster in 1440p
HD Graphics 630 is 333% faster in 4K

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

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 630 is 467% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 2700M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD Graphics 630 is ahead in 31 test (89%)
FX 2700M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.11	0.95
Recency	1 January 2017	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	65 Watt

HD Graphics 630 has a 227.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 630 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation one.

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