Quadro FX 2500M vs UHD Graphics 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 630 with Quadro FX 2500M, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 630 outperforms 2500M by a whopping 451% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 813 | 1269 |
| Place by popularity | 52 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.49 | 0.88 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Comet Lake GT2 | G71 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 29 September 2005 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.45 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4232 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 3 | 16 |
| 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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-III |
| Width | IGP | no data |
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 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 38.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 17
+467%
| 3−4
−467%
|
| 1440p | 10
+900%
| 1−2
−900%
|
| 4K | 7
+600%
| 1−2
−600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 33.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 99.99 |
| 4K | no data | 99.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+64.3%
|
27−30
−64.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+64.3%
|
27−30
−64.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+64.3%
|
27−30
−64.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 630 and FX 2500M compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 630 is 467% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 630 is 900% faster in 1440p
- UHD Graphics 630 is 600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 950% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 630 performs better in 31 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.70 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 1 October 2017 | 29 September 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
UHD Graphics 630 has a 451% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
