Radeon HD 6290 vs UHD Graphics 630

Place in the ranking	764	1351
Place by popularity	35	not in top-100
Power efficiency	14.23	0.98
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Comet Lake GT2	Cedar
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	1 October 2017 (7 years ago)	4 December 2011 (13 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	80
Core clock speed	350 MHz	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	400 MHz
Number of transistors	189 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	19 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.45	5.200
Floating-point processing power	0.4232 TFLOPS	0.104 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	4
TMUs	23	8

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 x1	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	IGP	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	12.8 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.103	N/A

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
+1048%

HD 6290 0.27

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
+1046%

HD 6290 104

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

UHD Graphics 630 1790
+900%

HD 6290 179

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
+1450%

HD 6290 497

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 +167%	6 −167%
1440p	10	0−1
4K	7	0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +150%	2−3 −150%
Elden Ring	6−7	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	8	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	13 +160%	5−6 −160%
Metro Exodus	8	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Valorant	8	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Dota 2	11	0−1
Elden Ring	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	13 +117%	6−7 −117%
Fortnite	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	12 +140%	5−6 −140%
Grand Theft Auto V	7	0−1
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	33 +450%	6−7 −450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +25%	4−5 −25%
Valorant	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	29 +142%	12−14 −142%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Dota 2	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Far Cry 5	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	11 +120%	5−6 −120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +367%	6−7 −367%
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 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%

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 +75%	4−5 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Valorant	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%

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 +800%	1−2 −800%
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	0−1
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	0−1

This is how UHD Graphics 630 and HD 6290 compete in popular games:

UHD Graphics 630 is 167% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 2100% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6290 is 114% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

UHD Graphics 630 is ahead in 27 tests (87%)
HD 6290 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.10	0.27
Recency	1 October 2017	4 December 2011
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	19 Watt

UHD Graphics 630 has a 1048.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6290 in performance tests.

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