Quadro P520 vs UHD Graphics P630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics P630 with Quadro P520, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics P630 outperforms P520 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 575 | 609 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 29.34 | 20.86 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Coffee Lake GT2 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 24 May 2018 (6 years ago) | 23 May 2019 (5 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 | 192 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 1303 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 35.83 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4608 TFLOPS | 1.147 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 48.06 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 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) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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 | 24−27
+14.3%
| 21
−14.3%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+4.3%
| 23
−4.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−325%
|
30−35
+325%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−71.4%
|
45−50
+71.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−325%
|
30−35
+325%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−71.4%
|
45−50
+71.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−325%
|
30−35
+325%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−71.4%
|
45−50
+71.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 2−3 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics P630 and Quadro P520 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics P630 is 14% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics P630 is 4% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P520 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P520 is ahead in 29 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 37 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.40 | 5.46 |
| Recency | 24 May 2018 | 23 May 2019 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 18 Watt |
UHD Graphics P630 has a 17.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 20% lower power consumption.
Quadro P520, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months.
The UHD Graphics P630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P520 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics P630 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P520 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
