GeForce GT 630 vs Radeon R9 Fury

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury and GeForce GT 630, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.83
+1311%

R9 Fury outperforms GT 630 by a whopping 1311% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking219926
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.990.08
Power efficiency6.191.86
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameFijiGF108
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 Fury has 9888% better value for money than GT 630.

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 cores358496
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data810 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate224.012.96
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS0.311 TFLOPS
ROPs644
TMUs22416

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)DDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s28.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-2.1

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.

R9 Fury 24.83
+1311%
GT 630 1.76

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

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.

R9 Fury 9570
+1314%
GT 630 677

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.

R9 Fury 14580
+1700%
GT 630 810

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 HD88
+1367%
6−7
−1367%
1440p103
+1371%
7−8
−1371%
4K47
+1467%
3−4
−1467%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.2416.67
1440p5.3314.28
4K11.6833.33

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+1900%
2−3
−1900%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+1520%
5−6
−1520%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+1900%
2−3
−1900%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+1350%
10−11
−1350%
Hitman 3 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+1338%
8−9
−1338%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+1317%
6−7
−1317%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+1580%
5−6
−1580%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+1371%
7−8
−1371%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Battlefield 5 51
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+1900%
2−3
−1900%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+1350%
10−11
−1350%
Hitman 3 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+1338%
8−9
−1338%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+1317%
6−7
−1317%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+1580%
5−6
−1580%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+1371%
7−8
−1371%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+1900%
2−3
−1900%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+1350%
10−11
−1350%
Hitman 3 50−55
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+1338%
8−9
−1338%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+1580%
5−6
−1580%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+1433%
3−4
−1433%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+1371%
7−8
−1371%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+1525%
4−5
−1525%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+1467%
3−4
−1467%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+1320%
10−11
−1320%
Hitman 3 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+1467%
3−4
−1467%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+1456%
9−10
−1456%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Battlefield 5 38
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Hitman 3 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+1322%
9−10
−1322%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+1700%
2−3
−1700%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%

This is how R9 Fury and GT 630 compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 1367% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 1371% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 1467% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.83 1.76
Recency 10 July 2015 15 May 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 65 Watt

R9 Fury has a 1310.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 630, on the other hand, has 323.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 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.


AMD Radeon R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630
GeForce GT 630

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.


3.7
174 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1
2734 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630 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.