GeForce GTX 1630 vs Radeon 680M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 680M with GeForce GTX 1630, including specs and performance data.
1630 outperforms 680M by a substantial 38% 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 | 523 | 436 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.12 | 12.11 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Rembrandt+ | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 January 2023 (2 years ago) | 28 June 2022 (3 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 | 768 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1740 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2200 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,100 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 105.6 | 57.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.379 TFLOPS | 1.828 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | 8 MB | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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:
| Full HD | 37
−35.1%
| 50−55
+35.1%
|
| 1440p | 17
−23.5%
| 21−24
+23.5%
|
| 4K | 11
−27.3%
| 14−16
+27.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 38
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 34
−32.4%
|
45−50
+32.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−32.1%
|
70−75
+32.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 52
−34.6%
|
70−75
+34.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 22
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−37.9%
|
120−130
+37.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−33.3%
|
180−190
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 71
−33.8%
|
95−100
+33.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
−28.6%
|
45−50
+28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−32.1%
|
70−75
+32.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 46
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
−30.4%
|
30−33
+30.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
−37.5%
|
55−60
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−37.9%
|
120−130
+37.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 61
−31.1%
|
80−85
+31.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Valorant | 146
−37%
|
200−210
+37%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
−32.1%
|
70−75
+32.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−34.3%
|
90−95
+34.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−36.4%
|
60−65
+36.4%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−34%
|
130−140
+34%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−33.3%
|
60−65
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
This is how Radeon 680M and GTX 1630 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1630 is 35% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1630 is 24% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1630 is 27% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.15 | 11.28 |
| Recency | 3 January 2023 | 28 June 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 75 Watt |
Radeon 680M has an age advantage of 6 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
GTX 1630, on the other hand, has a 38.4% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 1630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 680M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1630 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
