GeForce GT 630M vs Radeon R5 M320
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M320 and GeForce GT 630M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 630M outperforms R5 M320 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1072 | 1018 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.89 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 22 March 2012 (12 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 | 320 | 96 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | Up to 800 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 | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 10.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 0.2534 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
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\GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | Up to 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | Up to 32.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
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 | + | - |
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| DirectX 11.2 | no data | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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:
| 900p | 16−18
−18.8%
| 19
+18.8%
|
| Full HD | 12−14
−33.3%
| 16
+33.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−29.6%
|
35
+29.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−43.8%
|
23
+43.8%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 4 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−37.5%
|
22
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
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
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| 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
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| 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%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how R5 M320 and GT 630M compete in popular games:
- GT 630M is 19% faster in 900p
- GT 630M is 33% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 630M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 630M is ahead in 25 tests (53%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (47%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.17 | 1.38 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 22 March 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R5 M320 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 630M, on the other hand, has a 17.9% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GT 630M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M320 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.
