GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon RX Vega 11

Place in the ranking	609	928
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.08
Power efficiency	10.82	1.87
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Raven	GF108
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	10 May 2018 (6 years ago)	15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99.99

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	704	96
Core clock speed	300 MHz	810 MHz
Boost clock speed	1251 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,940 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.04	12.96
Floating-point processing power	1.761 TFLOPS	0.311 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	44	16

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).

Interface	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	IGP	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	System Shared	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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	Motherboard Dependent	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.7 (6.4)	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	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.

RX Vega 11 5.49
+212%

GT 630 1.76

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.

RX Vega 11 2109
+212%

GT 630 676

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.

RX Vega 11 3494
+331%

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.

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	28 +250%	8−9 −250%
1440p	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
4K	12 +300%	3−4 −300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	12.50
1440p	no data	99.99
4K	no data	33.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Elden Ring	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	20 +233%	6−7 −233%
Metro Exodus	18 +260%	5−6 −260%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Valorant	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Dota 2	27 +238%	8−9 −238%
Elden Ring	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Far Cry 5	30 +233%	9−10 −233%
Fortnite	30−35 +220%	10−11 −220%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Metro Exodus	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	54 +238%	16−18 −238%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Valorant	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
World of Tanks	85−90 +226%	27−30 −226%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Dota 2	42 +250%	12−14 −250%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +229%	14−16 −229%
Valorant	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Elden Ring	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +250%	10−11 −250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
World of Tanks	40−45 +233%	12−14 −233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Valorant	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Elden Ring	3−4	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Fortnite	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Valorant	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

This is how RX Vega 11 and GT 630 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 11 is 250% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 11 is 400% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 11 is 300% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.49	1.76
Recency	10 May 2018	15 May 2012
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	65 Watt

RX Vega 11 has a 211.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 11 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.