Radeon 630 vs HD 6310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6310 and Radeon 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
630 outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 1193% 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 | 1371 | 739 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.23 | 5.71 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Loveland | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (14 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 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 | 80 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 276 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1218 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.208 | 38.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04416 TFLOPS | 1.247 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 112.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−423%
|
65−70
+423%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−278%
|
30−35
+278%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−278%
|
30−35
+278%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 7−8 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| God of War | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| God of War | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 630 is 933% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 630 performs better in 29 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 3.75 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 13 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 6310 has 177.8% lower power consumption.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has a 1193.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
