Radeon RX 590 GME vs GeForce GT 630

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking920not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.08no data
Power efficiency1.87no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGF108Polaris 20
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date15 May 2012 (12 years ago)9 March 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores962304
Core clock speed810 MHz1257 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1420 MHz
Number of transistors585 million5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate12.96204.5
Floating-point processing power0.311 TFLOPS6.543 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs16144

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 mm241 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s256.0 GB/s

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 15 May 2012 9 March 2020
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 175 Watt

GT 630 has 169.2% lower power consumption.

RX 590 GME, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 630 and Radeon RX 590 GME. We've got no test results to judge.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 630
GeForce GT 630
AMD Radeon RX 590 GME
Radeon RX 590 GME

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 2687 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 528 votes

Rate Radeon RX 590 GME on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.