Radeon 610M vs HD Graphics P630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics P630 with Radeon 610M, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics P630 outperforms 610M by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 775 | 804 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 72 |
| Power efficiency | 14.17 | 13.17 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT2 | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm++ | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.40 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 2 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| 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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1740 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 | 14−16
+0%
| 14
+0%
|
| 1440p | 45−50
+4.7%
| 43
−4.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−550%
|
52
+550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−375%
|
38
+375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−100%
|
16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+7.8%
|
50−55
−7.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−100%
|
16
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14
+55.6%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−100%
|
12
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−118%
|
61
+118%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how HD Graphics P630 and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
- HD Graphics P630 is 5% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics P630 is 100% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 610M is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics P630 is ahead in 25 tests (45%)
- Radeon 610M is ahead in 10 tests (18%)
- there's a draw in 21 test (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.68 | 2.49 |
| Recency | 5 August 2016 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
HD Graphics P630 has a 7.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics P630 and Radeon 610M.
Be aware that HD Graphics P630 is a desktop card while Radeon 610M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
