AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M

General info

Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.

Place in our rating
 
Value for money (0-100)
no data
 
0.07
Architecture
GCN
 
Fermi
GPU code name
Jet UL(T) DDR3
 
N13P-GL/GL2
Market segment
Laptop
 
Laptop
Launch date
4 June 2014 (7 years ago)
 
6 December 2011 (9 years ago)
Price now
no data
 
$1121

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
576
 
96
CUDA cores
no data
 
96
Core clock speed
855 / 514 MHz
 
no data
Boost clock speed
940 MHz
 
no data
Number of transistors
690 million
 
585 million
Manufacturing process technology
28 nm
 
40 / 28 nm
Thermal design power (TDP)
no data
 
33 Watt
Texture fill rate
17.10
 
no data
Floating-point performance
no data
 
253.4 gflops

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on Radeon R6 M255DX and GeForce GT 630M 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
 
medium sized
Bus support
no data
 
PCI Express 2.0
Interface
IGP
 
MXM-A (3.0)

Memory

Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type
DDR3
 
DDR3\GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount
no data
 
1 GB
Memory clock speed
no data
 
1800 MHz
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
Eyefinity
+
 
-
HDMI
-
 
+
HDCP
-
 
+
Maximum VGA resolution
no data
 
Up to 2048x1536

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration
+
 
-
3D Blu-Ray
-
 
+
Optimus
-
 
+

API support

APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.

DirectX
12 (11_1)
 
12 (11_0)
DirectX 11.2
no data
 
12 API
Shader Model
5.1
 
5.1
OpenGL
4.6
 
4.5
OpenCL
1.2
 
1.1
Vulkan
1.2.131
 
N/A
CUDA
-
 
+

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.

Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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.

R6 M255DX 2.01
GT 630M 2.06 +2.5%

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.

R6 M255DX 7172 +28.6%
GT 630M 5577

3DMark Fire Strike Score

R6 M255DX 885 +31.3%
GT 630M 674

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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R6 M255DX 1115 +55.1%
GT 630M 719

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.

R6 M255DX 2198 +112.4%
GT 630M 1035

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R6 M255DX 5008 +2.9%
GT 630M 4869

Passmark

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.

R6 M255DX 532
GT 630M 544 +2.3%

Rendering quality tests

GFXBench render quality
4549 +0.2%
 
4541 −0.2%
GFXBench high precision render quality
4549 +0.2%
 
4541 −0.2%

Mining hashrates

Cryptocurrency mining performance of Radeon R6 M255DX and GeForce GT 630M. Usually measured in megahashes per second.

Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256)
no data
 
21 Mh/s

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Both graphics cards satisfy the 68% minimum and 59% recommended requirements of all games known to us.

Minimum
68%
Recommended
59%
Minimum
68%
Recommended
59%

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

 
R6 M255DX
GT 630M
900p
 
no data
19
1080p
 
11 −45.5%
16 +45.5%

Competitors of Radeon R6 M255DX from NVIDIA

The nearest Radeon R6 M255DX's NVIDIA equivalent is GeForce GT 435M, which is faster by 1% and higher by 4 positions in our rating.

Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon R6 M255DX:

Competitors of GeForce GT 630M from AMD

We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GT 630M from AMD is Radeon R5 M335, which is nearly equal in speed and higher by 1 position in our rating.

Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GT 630M:

Advantages of AMD Radeon R6 M255DX

Much newer (4 June 2014 vs 6 December 2011)

More pipelines (576 vs 96)

Finer manufacturing process technology (28 vs 40 nm)

Mantle (an API developed by AMD for 3D graphics acceleration. Discontinued and later superceded by Vulkan)

Advantages of NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M

2.5% better performance in benchmarks

CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture - an API for video card computing power usage in tasks different from 3D graphics processing. Can be used for physics simulation for instance)

PhysX (hardware acceleration of physical simulation engine named PhysX)

Optimus (lowers energy usage by automatically switching between integrated and discrete NVIDIA GPU. Similar to AMD Enduro)

HDCP

So, which one is the better GPU?

Technical City couldn't decide between AMD Radeon R6 M255DX and NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M. 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.

Cast your vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon R6 M255DX
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
Like
Like

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of video cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more probable options to consider.

User rating

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

Advices and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.