Radeon RX 6300M vs UHD Graphics 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 630 with Radeon RX 6300M, including specs and performance data.
RX 6300M outperforms UHD Graphics 630 by a whopping 438% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 774 | 339 |
| Place by popularity | 42 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.06 | 32.43 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Comet Lake GT2 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 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 | 184 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.45 | 115.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4232 TFLOPS | 3.686 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 32 |
| TMUs | 23 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 4.0 x4 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 | 17
−429%
| 90−95
+429%
|
| 1440p | 10
−400%
| 50−55
+400%
|
| 4K | 7
−400%
| 35−40
+400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
−230%
|
85−90
+230%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
−560%
|
30−35
+560%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−570%
|
65−70
+570%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
−368%
|
85−90
+368%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
−783%
|
50−55
+783%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−480%
|
85−90
+480%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−346%
|
55−60
+346%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−174%
|
120−130
+174%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−570%
|
65−70
+570%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4
−2125%
|
85−90
+2125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 29
−607%
|
200−210
+607%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
−357%
|
95−100
+357%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−783%
|
50−55
+783%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−480%
|
85−90
+480%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−743%
|
55−60
+743%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−346%
|
55−60
+346%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−378%
|
40−45
+378%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−174%
|
120−130
+174%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−570%
|
65−70
+570%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−405%
|
95−100
+405%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−783%
|
50−55
+783%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−346%
|
55−60
+346%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−378%
|
40−45
+378%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−174%
|
120−130
+174%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−480%
|
85−90
+480%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−448%
|
110−120
+448%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−504%
|
150−160
+504%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−464%
|
150−160
+464%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−550%
|
24−27
+550%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−81.3%
|
27−30
+81.3%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−480%
|
85−90
+480%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 630 and RX 6300M compete in popular games:
- RX 6300M is 429% faster in 1080p
- RX 6300M is 400% faster in 1440p
- RX 6300M is 400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6300M is 2125% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6300M is ahead in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.67 | 14.37 |
| Recency | 1 October 2017 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
UHD Graphics 630 has 133.3% lower power consumption.
RX 6300M, on the other hand, has a 438.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6300M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6300M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
