GeForce GT 520M vs GT 630M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 630M and GeForce GT 520M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 630M
2012
1 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 33 Watt
1.40
+89.2%

GT 630M outperforms GT 520M by an impressive 89% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10071161
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency2.914.23
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF108GF108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)5 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$59.99

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 cores9648
Core clock speedUp to 800 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors585 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate10.564.800
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs168

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3\GDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 128bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 32.0 GB/s12.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
DirectX 11.212 APIno data
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

GT 630M 1.40
+89.2%
GT 520M 0.74

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.

GT 630M 539
+89.1%
GT 520M 285

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.

GT 630M 1035
+106%
GT 520M 502

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.

GT 630M 4869
+114%
GT 520M 2280

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 630M 2404
+81.3%
GT 520M 1326

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GT 630M 7
+75%
GT 520M 4

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:

900p19
+138%
8
−138%
Full HD16
+33.3%
12
−33.3%
1200p12−14
+71.4%
7
−71.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.5%
30−35
−6.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.5%
30−35
−6.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.5%
30−35
−6.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GT 630M and GT 520M compete in popular games:

  • GT 630M is 138% faster in 900p
  • GT 630M is 33% faster in 1080p
  • GT 630M is 71% faster in 1200p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 630M is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 630M is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.40 0.74
Recency 22 March 2012 5 January 2011
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 12 Watt

GT 630M has a 89.2% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

GT 520M, on the other hand, has 175% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 630M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.


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 630M
GeForce GT 630M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
GeForce GT 520M

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.


3.3 908 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 411 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520M 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.