GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon RX Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 and GeForce GT 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 64 outperforms GT 630 by a whopping 1998% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 133 | 934 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 80 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 21.43 | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 8.59 | 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
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX Vega 64 has 26688% 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 and SDK 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.
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.
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.
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 | 119
+2280%
| 5−6
−2280%
|
| 1440p | 82
+2633%
| 3−4
−2633%
|
| 4K | 54
+2600%
| 2−3
−2600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.19
+377%
| 20.00
−377%
|
| 1440p | 6.09
+448%
| 33.33
−448%
|
| 4K | 9.24
+441%
| 50.00
−441%
|
- RX Vega 64 has 377% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 has 448% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 has 441% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2425%
|
4−5
−2425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+2433%
|
3−4
−2433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2425%
|
4−5
−2425%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 161
+2200%
|
7−8
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+2433%
|
3−4
−2433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110
+2100%
|
5−6
−2100%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+2071%
|
7−8
−2071%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 167
+2286%
|
7−8
−2286%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+2183%
|
6−7
−2183%
|
| Valorant | 315
+2150%
|
14−16
−2150%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110
+2425%
|
4−5
−2425%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 146
+2333%
|
6−7
−2333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+2433%
|
3−4
−2433%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2208%
|
12−14
−2208%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 150
+2043%
|
7−8
−2043%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+2500%
|
4−5
−2500%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+2071%
|
7−8
−2071%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 158
+2157%
|
7−8
−2157%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+2240%
|
5−6
−2240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+2183%
|
6−7
−2183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+2100%
|
6−7
−2100%
|
| Valorant | 293
+2342%
|
12−14
−2342%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 139
+2217%
|
6−7
−2217%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+2433%
|
3−4
−2433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 138
+2200%
|
6−7
−2200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+2350%
|
4−5
−2350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 128
+2033%
|
6−7
−2033%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+2183%
|
6−7
−2183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+2467%
|
3−4
−2467%
|
| Valorant | 140
+2233%
|
6−7
−2233%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+2071%
|
7−8
−2071%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+2260%
|
10−11
−2260%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+2167%
|
3−4
−2167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2088%
|
8−9
−2088%
|
| Valorant | 263
+2092%
|
12−14
−2092%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+2150%
|
4−5
−2150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 81
+2600%
|
3−4
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98
+2350%
|
4−5
−2350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+2100%
|
4−5
−2100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+2267%
|
3−4
−2267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 46
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Valorant | 205
+2178%
|
9−10
−2178%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 96
+2300%
|
4−5
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
This is how RX Vega 64 and GT 630 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 64 is 2280% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 64 is 2633% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 64 is 2600% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.08 | 1.72 |
| 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 1997.7% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
