Radeon 630 vs Quadro NVS 285

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
210S 280 AGP 280 PCI 280 PCIe 280 SD 285 290 295
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
610 610M 620 625 630 660M 680M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 285 with Radeon 630, including specs and performance data.

NVS 285
2006, $28
128 MB DDR, 18 Watt
0.11

630 outperforms NVS 285 by a whopping 3382% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
NVS 285 NVS 285
Radeon 630 Radeon 630

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1514756
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.475.89
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameNV44 A2Polaris 23
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date6 June 2006 (19 years ago)13 May 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$27.99 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 coresno data512
Core clock speed275 MHz1082 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1218 MHz
Number of transistors75 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology110 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate1.10038.98
Floating-point processing powerno data1.247 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs432
L1 Cacheno data128 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDRGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount128 MB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed250 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth8 GB/s112.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DMS-591x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_0)
Shader Model3.06.4
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131

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.

NVS 285 0.11
Radeon 630 3.83
+3382%

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.

NVS 285 44
Samples: 149
Radeon 630 1602
+3541%
Samples: 28

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.11 3.83
Recency 6 June 2006 13 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 110 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 50 Watt

NVS 285 has 177.8% lower power consumption.

Radeon 630, on the other hand, has a 3381.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 285 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 285 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 630 is a notebook one.

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 NVS 285
Quadro NVS 285
AMD Radeon 630
Radeon 630
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

NVS 285 Quadro NVS 285
vs
FX 550 Quadro FX 550
Radeon 630 Radeon 630
vs
Radeon 540X Radeon 540X
NVS 285 Quadro NVS 285
vs
NVS 210S Quadro NVS 210S
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
ATI HD 4650 HD 4650
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
7200 GS 7200 GS
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
7300 GS Low Profile 7300 GS Low Profile
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
FX 5200 Ultra FX 5200 Ultra
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
HD 7350 OEM PCI HD 7350 OEM PCI
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
A40 PCIe A40 PCIe
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
Tesla T40 24 GB Tesla T40 24 GB
NVS 285 NVS 285
vs
RTX 5090 RTX 5090
FX 3500 FX 3500
vs
GeForce 305M 305M
FX 3500 FX 3500
vs
HD 6570 OEM HD 6570 OEM

Community ratings

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

4.2 6 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 34 votes

Rate Radeon 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 285 or Radeon 630, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.