Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
Combined performance score
Radeon R5 M330 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 10% in our combined benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 955 | 925 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Value for money | 0.02 | no data |
Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
GPU code name | N13P-GL/GL2 | Exo Pro DDR3 |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 6 December 2011 (12 years old) | 7 May 2015 (8 years old) |
Current price | $1121 | no data |
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 320 |
CUDA cores | 96 | no data |
Compute units | no data | 5 |
Core clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | 1030 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1030 MHz |
Number of transistors | 585 million | 690 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 18 Watt |
Texture fill rate | Up to 12.8 billion/sec | 20.60 |
Floating-point performance | 253.4 gflops | 659.2 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 630M and Radeon R5 M330 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
Memory
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\GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | Up to 128bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | Up to 32.0 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | + | no data |
HDCP | + | no data |
Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
AppAcceleration | no data | - |
Enduro | no data | - |
HD3D | no data | + |
PowerTune | no data | + |
DualGraphics | no data | 1 |
TrueAudio | no data | - |
ZeroCore | no data | + |
Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
Optimus | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | DirectX® 12 |
DirectX 11.2 | 12 API | no data |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | Not Listed |
Vulkan | N/A | + |
Mantle | no data | + |
CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Radeon R5 M330 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 10% in our combined benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon R5 M330 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 10% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon R5 M330 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 63% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon R5 M330 outperforms GeForce GT 630M by 28% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GT 630M outperforms Radeon R5 M330 by 14% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 | 19
+5.6%
| 18−21
−5.6%
|
Full HD | 16
+77.8%
| 9
−77.8%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GT 630M and R5 M330 compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- GT 630M is 5.6% faster than R5 M330
1080p resolution:
- GT 630M is 77.8% faster than R5 M330
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 M330 is 100% faster than the GT 630M.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M330 is ahead in 6 tests (19%)
- there's a draw in 26 tests (81%)
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 1.40 | 1.54 |
Recency | 6 December 2011 | 7 May 2015 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 18 Watt |
We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 630M and Radeon R5 M330. The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.