Radeon 630 vs R9 280

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Radeon 630, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
14.40
+287%

R9 280 outperforms 630 by a whopping 287% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking364706
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.26no data
Power efficiency4.985.15
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameTahitiPolaris 23
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)13 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 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 cores1792512
Core clock speedno data1082 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1218 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate104.538.98
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS1.247 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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 3.0 x8
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s112.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
HDMI++

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131

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.

R9 280 14.40
+287%
Radeon 630 3.72

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.

R9 280 5554
+287%
Radeon 630 1434

Gaming performance

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

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 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+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 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+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 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+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 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
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 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+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%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+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%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.40 3.72
Recency 4 March 2014 13 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 50 Watt

R9 280 has a 287.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Radeon 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Radeon 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.

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 R9 280
Radeon R9 280
AMD Radeon 630
Radeon 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.


3.6 385 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 32 votes

Rate Radeon 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.