Radeon 630 vs Pro WX Vega M GL
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL with Radeon 630, including specs and performance data.
Pro M GL outperforms 630 by a whopping 186% 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 | 465 | 754 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 12.68 | 5.76 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 April 2018 (7 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 | 1280 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1218 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 38.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.588 TFLOPS | 1.247 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 80 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 512 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
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 | 52
+189%
| 18−20
−189%
|
| 4K | 18
+200%
| 6−7
−200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+220%
|
14−16
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+218%
|
10−12
−218%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+88.7%
|
50−55
−88.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+220%
|
14−16
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+135%
|
65−70
−135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+124%
|
30−35
−124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+218%
|
10−12
−218%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+88.7%
|
50−55
−88.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+220%
|
14−16
−220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+124%
|
30−35
−124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+218%
|
10−12
−218%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+88.7%
|
50−55
−88.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+186%
|
27−30
−186%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+133%
|
30−33
−133%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+205%
|
35−40
−205%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+205%
|
18−20
−205%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+233%
|
12−14
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
This is how Pro WX Vega M GL and Radeon 630 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX Vega M GL is 189% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX Vega M GL is 200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX Vega M GL is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro WX Vega M GL surpassed Radeon 630 in all 58 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.18 | 3.56 |
| Recency | 24 April 2018 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
Pro WX Vega M GL has a 186% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Radeon 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 30% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon 630 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
