HD Graphics 630 vs Quadro M3000M

Place in the ranking	357	756
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	13.51	14.41
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GM204	Kaby Lake GT2
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	1 January 2017 (7 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	1,024	192
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	350 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	24.00
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	3
TMUs	64	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	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	64 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	no data
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	Portable Device Dependent
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	+
CUDA	5.2	-

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.

M3000M 14.54
+369%

HD Graphics 630 3.10

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.

M3000M 5608
+369%

HD Graphics 630 1197

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.

M3000M 8289
+379%

HD Graphics 630 1729

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.

M3000M 27405
+257%

HD Graphics 630 7685

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.

M3000M 6537
+513%

HD Graphics 630 1067

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.

M3000M 44603
+359%

HD Graphics 630 9715

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

M3000M 80
+325%

HD Graphics 630 19

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	62 +343%	14 −343%
4K	28 +115%	13 −115%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24
+267%

6−7

−267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +560%	5 −560%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +667%	6−7 −667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +314%	7−8 −314%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +450%	6 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +388%	8 −388%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +365%	20 −365%
Hitman 3	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +217%	21−24 −217%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +380%	10 −380%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +457%	7 −457%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +292%	12 −292%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +94.9%	35−40 −94.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +267%	9−10 −267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +667%	6−7 −667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +314%	7−8 −314%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +388%	8−9 −388%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +520%	15 −520%
Hitman 3	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +217%	21−24 −217%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +1100%	4 −1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +388%	8−9 −388%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +262%	12−14 −262%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	90 +463%	16 −463%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +94.9%	35−40 −94.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +267%	9−10 −267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +314%	7−8 −314%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +447%	16−18 −447%
Hitman 3	27−30 +238%	8−9 −238%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +217%	21−24 −217%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +262%	12−14 −262%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +94.9%	35−40 −94.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40
+388%

8−9

−388%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +460%	5−6 −460%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +429%	14−16 −429%
Hitman 3	16−18 +113%	8−9 −113%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +263%	8−9 −263%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +363%	18−20 −363%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+283%

6−7

−283%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +407%	14−16 −407%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +600%	2−3 −600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+225%

4−5

−225%

This is how M3000M and HD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:

M3000M is 343% faster in 1080p
M3000M is 115% faster in 4K

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

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M3000M is 2200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, M3000M surpassed HD Graphics 630 in all 62 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.54	3.10
Recency	18 August 2015	1 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	64 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	15 Watt

M3000M has a 369% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 630 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.