GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon R7 265

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 and GeForce GT 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.41
+495%

R7 265 outperforms GT 630 by a whopping 495% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking438927
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.270.08
Power efficiency4.761.84
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code namePitcairnGF108
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 265 has 6488% better value for money than GT 630.

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 cores102496
Core clock speedno data810 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2012.96
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS0.311 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs6416

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length210 mm145 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s28.8 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
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

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan-N/A
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. 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 265 10.41
+495%
GT 630 1.75

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 265 5220
+544%
GT 630 810

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.41 1.75
Recency 13 February 2014 15 May 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 65 Watt

R7 265 has a 494.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 630, on the other hand, has 130.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

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


AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630
GeForce GT 630

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

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


3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 2756 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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