Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs UHD Graphics 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 630 with Radeon Pro Vega 16, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 16 outperforms UHD Graphics 630 by a whopping 304% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 764 | 400 |
| Place by popularity | 35 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.26 | 11.51 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Comet Lake GT2 | Vega 12 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 14 November 2018 (6 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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.45 | 76.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4232 TFLOPS | 2.437 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 32 |
| TMUs | 23 | 64 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 307.2 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 | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | 1.2.131 |
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.
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 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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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
−256%
| 57
+256%
|
| 1440p | 10
−300%
| 40−45
+300%
|
| 4K | 7
−443%
| 38
+443%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
−517%
|
35−40
+517%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8
−413%
|
40−45
+413%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 13
−285%
|
50−55
+285%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−325%
|
30−35
+325%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Valorant | 8
−513%
|
45−50
+513%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−413%
|
40−45
+413%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−127%
|
25
+127%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
−517%
|
35−40
+517%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−238%
|
44
+238%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−318%
|
70−75
+318%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−467%
|
30−35
+467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
−182%
|
90−95
+182%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−191%
|
30−35
+191%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−660%
|
35−40
+660%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| World of Tanks | 29
−490%
|
170−180
+490%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−413%
|
40−45
+413%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−279%
|
72
+279%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
−380%
|
45−50
+380%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
−355%
|
50−55
+355%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−232%
|
90−95
+232%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−268%
|
80−85
+268%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
−324%
|
85−90
+324%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2800%
|
27−30
+2800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−210%
|
30−35
+210%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−53.3%
|
21−24
+53.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−311%
|
35−40
+311%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−443%
|
38
+443%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Valorant | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 630 and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 16 is 256% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 16 is 300% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 16 is 443% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 16 is 2800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro Vega 16 is ahead in 58 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.10 | 12.51 |
| Recency | 1 October 2017 | 14 November 2018 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
UHD Graphics 630 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 400% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega 16, on the other hand, has a 303.5% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
