Radeon 630 vs PRO W7500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7500 with Radeon 630, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7500 outperforms 630 by a whopping 758% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 182 | 736 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 40.06 | no data |
Power efficiency | 34.66 | 5.66 |
Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
GPU code name | Navi 33 | Polaris 23 |
Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
Release date | 3 August 2023 (1 year ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $429 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 cores | 1792 | 512 |
Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1082 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1700 MHz | 1218 MHz |
Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 2,200 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 50 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 190.4 | 38.98 |
Floating-point processing power | 12.19 TFLOPS | 1.247 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 64 | 16 |
TMUs | 112 | 32 |
Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 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 x8 |
Length | 216 mm | no data |
Width | 1-slot | no data |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1344 MHz | 1750 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 172.0 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 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 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |
Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 2.2 | 2.0 |
Vulkan | 1.3 | 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
Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+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 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
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 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Sons of the Forest | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
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%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
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 | 31.99 | 3.73 |
Recency | 3 August 2023 | 13 May 2019 |
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
Chip lithography | 6 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 50 Watt |
PRO W7500 has a 757.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has 40% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 630 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.