GeForce GT 230 vs UHD Graphics 630

Place in the ranking	760	1138
Place by popularity	40	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	14.36	0.78
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Comet Lake GT2	G94B
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	1 October 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$43.99

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 cores	184	48
Core clock speed	350 MHz	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.45	15.60
Floating-point processing power	0.4232 TFLOPS	0.156 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	16
TMUs	23	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	PCIe 2.0 x16
Width	IGP	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	System Shared	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	57.6 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 Connectors

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.103	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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.

UHD Graphics 630 3.09
+268%

GT 230 0.84

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.

UHD Graphics 630 1192
+269%

GT 230 323

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	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
1440p	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
4K	7 +600%	1−2 −600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	11.00
1440p	no data	22.00
4K	no data	43.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5
+400%

1−2

−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +275%	8−9 −275%
Hitman 3	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
Metro Exodus	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30 +275%	8−9 −275%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +286%	7−8 −286%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 +300%	3−4 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Watch Dogs: Legion	28 +300%	7−8 −300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

This is how UHD Graphics 630 and GT 230 compete in popular games:

UHD Graphics 630 is 300% faster in 1080p
UHD Graphics 630 is 400% faster in 1440p
UHD Graphics 630 is 600% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.09	0.84
Recency	1 October 2017	12 October 2009
Chip lithography	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	75 Watt

UHD Graphics 630 has a 267.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230 in performance tests.

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