Radeon R7 265 vs UHD Graphics P630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics P630 with Radeon R7 265, including specs and performance data.
R7 265 outperforms UHD Graphics P630 by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 584 | 443 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.32 |
| Power efficiency | 29.30 | 4.78 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Coffee Lake GT2 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 24 May 2018 (6 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 59.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4608 TFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 64 |
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 support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1 x 6-pin |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 179.2 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| 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) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−61.8%
|
110−120
+61.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−105
−60%
|
160−170
+60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−53.1%
|
75−80
+53.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−61.8%
|
110−120
+61.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−53.1%
|
75−80
+53.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−61.8%
|
110−120
+61.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
−52.8%
|
55−60
+52.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−52.2%
|
70−75
+52.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−62.2%
|
60−65
+62.2%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−61.8%
|
110−120
+61.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−50%
|
45−50
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.40 | 10.43 |
| Recency | 24 May 2018 | 13 February 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
UHD Graphics P630 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
R7 265, on the other hand, has a 63% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics P630 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics P630 is a notebook card while Radeon R7 265 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
