GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon 520
Aggregated performance score
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 16% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 837 | 881 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 85 |
| Value for money | 1.97 | 0.08 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Oland | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
| Current price | $140 | $112 (1.1x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Radeon 520 has 2363% better value for money than GT 630.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 12.96 |
| Floating-point performance | 659.2 gflops | 311.0 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Radeon 520 and GeForce GT 630 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Memory
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 | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | + | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 16% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 16% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 63% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 122% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce GT 630 by 88% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
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 | 15
+25%
| 12−14
−25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how Radeon 520 and GT 630 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 520 is 25% faster than GT 630 in 1080p
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.03 | 1.75 |
| Recency | 21 March 2017 | 15 May 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Radeon 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 520 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 630 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
