HD Graphics 630 vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with HD Graphics 630, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4000
2018
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
33.98
+1154%

4000 outperforms HD Graphics 630 by a whopping 1154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking153814
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.94no data
Power efficiency17.1114.55
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameTU104Kaby Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 November 2018 (6 years ago)1 January 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores2304192
Core clock speed1005 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate222.524.00
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs643
TMUs14424
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores36no data
L1 Cache2.3 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MBno data

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 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR6DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount8 GB64 GB
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth416.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-CPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.86.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.3+
CUDA7.5-
DLSS+-

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.

RTX 4000 33.98
+1154%
HD Graphics 630 2.71

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.

RTX 4000 15027
+1155%
Samples: 1952
HD Graphics 630 1197
Samples: 9706

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 HD200−210
+1150%
16
−1150%
1440p800−850
+1150%
64
−1150%
4K160−170
+1131%
13
−1131%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.50no data
1440p1.12no data
4K5.62no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Fortnite 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4
+0%
4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 2
+0%
2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High

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

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how RTX 4000 and HD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 is 1150% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 is 1150% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4000 is 1131% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.98 2.71
Recency 13 November 2018 1 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 64 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 15 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 1153.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

HD Graphics 630, on the other hand, has a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 966.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 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 RTX 4000
Quadro RTX 4000
Intel HD Graphics 630
HD Graphics 630

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.


3.6 516 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 1400 votes

Rate HD Graphics 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 4000 or HD Graphics 630, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.