HD Graphics 630 vs Radeon R7 250X

Place in the ranking	590	758
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.63	no data
Power efficiency	5.12	14.41
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	Kaby Lake GT2
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	1 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	640	192
Core clock speed	no data	350 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.00	24.00
Floating-point processing power	1.216 TFLOPS	0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	3
TMUs	40	24

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 x16	Ring Bus
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	no data

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	GDDR5	DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	64 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1625 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	no data
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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	-	+

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. 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.

R7 250X 5.88
+89.7%

HD Graphics 630 3.10

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.

R7 250X 2268
+89.5%

HD Graphics 630 1197

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.

R7 250X 2860
+168%

HD Graphics 630 1067

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	24−27 +71.4%	14 −71.4%
4K	24−27 +84.6%	13 −84.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.13	no data
4K	4.13	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5 +0%	5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	6 +0%	6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8 +0%	8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20 +0%	20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	10 +0%	10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7 +0%	7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 +0%	12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +0%	15 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	4 +0%	4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +0%	16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how R7 250X and HD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:

R7 250X is 71% faster in 1080p
R7 250X is 85% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.88	3.10
Recency	13 February 2014	1 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	64 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	15 Watt

R7 250X has a 89.7% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 433.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250X is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250X is a desktop card while HD Graphics 630 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.