GeForce GT 630 OEM vs Quadro FX 880M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 880M with GeForce GT 630 OEM, including specs and performance data.

FX 880M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
0.54

GT 630 OEM outperforms FX 880M by a whopping 189% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1215946
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.142.30
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGT216GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date7 January 2010 (15 years ago)24 April 2012 (12 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 cores48192
Core clock speed550 MHz875 MHz
Number of transistors486 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate8.80014.00
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1616

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.28 GB/s28.51 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.15.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA1.23.0

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 HD19
−163%
50−55
+163%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
World of Tanks 16−18
−165%
45−50
+165%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
World of Tanks 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Valorant 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
−167%
40−45
+167%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−167%
40−45
+167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−167%
40−45
+167%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Dota 2 14−16
−167%
40−45
+167%
Valorant 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

This is how FX 880M and GT 630 OEM compete in popular games:

  • GT 630 OEM is 163% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 1.56
Recency 7 January 2010 24 April 2012
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 50 Watt

FX 880M has 42.9% lower power consumption.

GT 630 OEM, on the other hand, has a 188.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GT 630 OEM is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 630 OEM is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630 OEM
GeForce GT 630 OEM

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 42 votes

Rate Quadro FX 880M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 28 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 OEM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.