GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon R5 M320
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M320 with GeForce GT 630, including specs and performance data.
GT 630 outperforms R5 M320 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1071 | 934 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 80 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.86 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 320 | 96 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 12.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 0.311 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 16 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.16 | 1.72 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 15 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R5 M320 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 630, on the other hand, has a 48.3% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GT 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M320 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 630 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.
