GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 and GeForce GT 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
20.98
+1099%

R9 290 outperforms GT 630 by a whopping 1099% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking259922
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.900.08
Power efficiency5.321.88
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameHawaiiGF108
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290 has 9775% 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 cores256096
Core clock speed947 MHz810 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate151.512.96
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.311 TFLOPS
ROPs644
TMUs16016

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mm145 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 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
HDMI++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/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.

R9 290 20.98
+1099%
GT 630 1.75

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 290 8093
+1095%
GT 630 677

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.

R9 290 11860
+1364%
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 20.98 1.75
Recency 5 November 2013 15 May 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 65 Watt

R9 290 has a 1098.9% 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 323.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 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 R9 290
Radeon R9 290
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.


4.2 552 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 2713 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.