Radeon HD 8550M vs HD Graphics 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 630 with Radeon HD 8550M, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 630 outperforms HD 8550M by a whopping 118% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 722 | 955 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.09 | 0.06 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | Kaby-Lake-H-GT2 | Sun |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 16 November 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $370 | $338 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD Graphics 630 has 50% better value for money than HD 8550M.
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 | 24 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 26.40 | 17.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 441.6 gflops | 544.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on HD Graphics 630 and Radeon HD 8550M 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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | 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 type | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1800 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 | No outputs | 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
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 630 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 118% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 32% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 107% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
HD Graphics 630 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 68% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
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 | 18
+125%
| 8−9
−125%
|
| 1440p | 64
+137%
| 27−30
−137%
|
| 4K | 11
+120%
| 5−6
−120%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+110%
|
10
−110%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
This is how HD Graphics 630 and HD 8550M compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 630 is 125% faster in 1080p
- HD Graphics 630 is 137% faster in 1440p
- HD Graphics 630 is 120% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.10 | 1.42 |
| Recency | 1 January 2017 | 16 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 64 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550M in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 630 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 8550M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
