UHD Graphics 630 vs Radeon PRO W7600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO W7600 with UHD Graphics 630, including specs and performance data.

PRO W7600
2023
8 GB GDDR6, 130 Watt
37.57
+1116%

PRO W7600 outperforms UHD Graphics 630 by a whopping 1116% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking127771
Place by popularitynot in top-10035
Cost-effectiveness evaluation81.91no data
Power efficiency19.8214.13
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameNavi 33Comet Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date3 August 2023 (1 year ago)1 October 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores2048184
Core clock speedno data350 MHz
Boost clock speed2440 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistors13,300 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate312.326.45
Floating-point processing powerno data0.4232 TFLOPS
ROPs643
TMUs12823

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 4.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x1
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed18 GB/sSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/sno 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 Connectors4x DisplayPort 2.1No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.76.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.22.1
Vulkan1.31.1.103

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.

PRO W7600 37.57
+1116%
UHD Graphics 630 3.09

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.

PRO W7600 14474
+1114%
UHD Graphics 630 1192

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 HD210−220
+1067%
18
−1067%
1440p120−130
+1100%
10
−1100%
4K85−90
+1114%
7
−1114%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.85no data
1440p4.99no data
4K7.05no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 8
+0%
8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 29
+0%
29
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 3
+0%
3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how PRO W7600 and UHD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7600 is 1067% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7600 is 1100% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7600 is 1114% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 37.57 3.09
Recency 3 August 2023 1 October 2017
Chip lithography 6 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 15 Watt

PRO W7600 has a 1115.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

UHD Graphics 630, on the other hand, has 766.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop one.

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.


AMD Radeon PRO W7600
Radeon PRO W7600
Intel UHD Graphics 630
UHD Graphics 630

Other comparisons

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.


5 3 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4098 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO W7600 or UHD Graphics 630, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.