GeForce GT 630M vs Quadro K510M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K510M with GeForce GT 630M, including specs and performance data.
K510M outperforms 630M by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1008 | 1078 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.92 | 2.89 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 22 March 2012 (13 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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 846 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.54 | 10.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3249 TFLOPS | 0.2534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3\GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | Up to 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 19.2 GB/s | Up to 32.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| DirectX 11.2 | no data | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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:
| 900p | 21−24
+10.5%
| 19
−10.5%
|
| Full HD | 18−20
+12.5%
| 16
−12.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+9.1%
|
30−35
−9.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35
+2.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
23
+21.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−300%
|
4
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+9.1%
|
30−35
−9.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−15.8%
|
22
+15.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+9.1%
|
30−35
−9.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how Quadro K510M and GT 630M compete in popular games:
- Quadro K510M is 11% faster in 900p
- Quadro K510M is 13% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro K510M is 200% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 630M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro K510M performs better in 34 tests (71%)
- GT 630M performs better in 4 tests (8%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (21%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.53 | 1.24 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 22 March 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 33 Watt |
Quadro K510M has a 23.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K510M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K510M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 630M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
