GeForce GT 335M vs UHD Graphics 630

Place in the ranking	763	1113
Place by popularity	35	not in top-100
Power efficiency	14.23	2.41
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Comet Lake GT2	GT215
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	1 October 2017 (7 years ago)	7 January 2010 (15 years ago)

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	184	72
Core clock speed	350 MHz	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.45	10.80
Floating-point processing power	0.4232 TFLOPS	0.1555 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	233
ROPs	3	8
TMUs	23	24

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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	PCIe 2.0 x16
Width	IGP	no data
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	25.6 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 Connectors	No outputs	Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power management	no data	8.0
Quick Sync	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.5	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.103	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

UHD Graphics 630 3.10
+216%

GT 335M 0.98

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.

UHD Graphics 630 1192
+215%

GT 335M 378

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

UHD Graphics 630 7704
+148%

GT 335M 3106

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	16 +0%	16 +0%
1440p	10 +233%	3−4 −233%
4K	7 +250%	2−3 −250%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Elden Ring	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	13 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Metro Exodus	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Valorant	8 +300%	2−3 −300%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Dota 2	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Elden Ring	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	13 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Fortnite	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Forza Horizon 4	12 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	33 +175%	12−14 −175%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 −20%	6−7 +20%
Valorant	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	29 +26.1%	21−24 −26.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Dota 2	19 +217%	6−7 −217%
Far Cry 5	10 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Forza Horizon 4	11 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +133%	12−14 −133%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Elden Ring	3−4	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Valorant	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Elden Ring	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	7 −114%	14−16 +114%
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Fortnite	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

This is how UHD Graphics 630 and GT 335M compete in popular games:

A tie in 1080p
UHD Graphics 630 is 233% faster in 1440p
UHD Graphics 630 is 250% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 467% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 335M is 114% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

UHD Graphics 630 is ahead in 30 tests (86%)
GT 335M is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.10	0.98
Recency	1 October 2017	7 January 2010
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	28 Watt

UHD Graphics 630 has a 216.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 86.7% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 335M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.