GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon RX Vega 64

Place in the ranking	130	929
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	21.39	0.08
Power efficiency	8.64	1.86
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GF108
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	7 August 2017 (7 years ago)	15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 64 has 26638% 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 cores	4096	96
Core clock speed	1247 MHz	810 MHz
Boost clock speed	1546 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	12,500 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	395.8	12.96
Floating-point processing power	12.66 TFLOPS	0.311 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	4
TMUs	256	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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	279 mm	145 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	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	HBM2	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	945 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	483.8 GB/s	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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	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	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.125	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 64 35.62
+2008%

GT 630 1.69

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 64 14233
+2005%

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 64 22501
+2678%

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	118 +2260%	5−6 −2260%
1440p	80 +2567%	3−4 −2567%
4K	52 +2500%	2−3 −2500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.23 +373%	20.00 −373%
1440p	6.24 +434%	33.33 −434%
4K	9.60 +421%	50.00 −421%

RX Vega 64 has 373% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX Vega 64 has 434% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX Vega 64 has 421% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +2433%	3−4 −2433%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +2533%	3−4 −2533%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	82 +2633%	3−4 −2633%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +2433%	3−4 −2433%
Cyberpunk 2077	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Forza Horizon 4	202 +2144%	9−10 −2144%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +2275%	4−5 −2275%
Metro Exodus	105 +2525%	4−5 −2525%
Red Dead Redemption 2	116 +2220%	5−6 −2220%
Valorant	182 +2175%	8−9 −2175%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	174 +2075%	8−9 −2075%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +2433%	3−4 −2433%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Dota 2	50 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
Far Cry 5	62 +3000%	2−3 −3000%
Fortnite	123 +2360%	5−6 −2360%
Forza Horizon 4	164 +2243%	7−8 −2243%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +2275%	4−5 −2275%
Grand Theft Auto V	110−120 +2240%	5−6 −2240%
Metro Exodus	79 +2533%	3−4 −2533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +2078%	9−10 −2078%
Red Dead Redemption 2	57 +2750%	2−3 −2750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	130−140 +2067%	6−7 −2067%
Valorant	92 +2200%	4−5 −2200%
World of Tanks	270−280 +2225%	12−14 −2225%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +2300%	3−4 −2300%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +2433%	3−4 −2433%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Dota 2	138 +2200%	6−7 −2200%
Far Cry 5	95−100 +2275%	4−5 −2275%
Forza Horizon 4	143 +2283%	6−7 −2283%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +2275%	4−5 −2275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +2078%	9−10 −2078%
Valorant	140 +2233%	6−7 −2233%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	65−70 +2167%	3−4 −2167%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +2167%	3−4 −2167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +2088%	8−9 −2088%
Red Dead Redemption 2	37 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
World of Tanks	230−240 +2260%	10−11 −2260%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +2233%	3−4 −2233%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Cyberpunk 2077	15	0−1
Far Cry 5	110−120 +2280%	5−6 −2280%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +2400%	4−5 −2400%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%
Metro Exodus	79 +2533%	3−4 −2533%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +3050%	2−3 −3050%
Valorant	95 +2275%	4−5 −2275%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Dota 2	70−75 +2267%	3−4 −2267%
Grand Theft Auto V	70−75 +2267%	3−4 −2267%
Metro Exodus	46 +2200%	2−3 −2200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +2280%	5−6 −2280%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +2267%	3−4 −2267%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	47 +2250%	2−3 −2250%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	7	0−1
Dota 2	96 +2300%	4−5 −2300%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +2600%	2−3 −2600%
Fortnite	50 +2400%	2−3 −2400%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +2850%	2−3 −2850%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Valorant	49 +2350%	2−3 −2350%

This is how RX Vega 64 and GT 630 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 64 is 2260% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 64 is 2567% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 64 is 2500% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	35.62	1.69
Recency	7 August 2017	15 May 2012
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	65 Watt

RX Vega 64 has a 2007.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

GT 630, on the other hand, has 353.8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 64 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.