
GeForce GT 630M vs Quadro 600

GeForce GT 630M
Popular choices:

Quadro 600
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GT 630M is positioned at rank 147 and the Quadro 600 is on rank 249, so the GeForce GT 630M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 630M
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 600
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro 600 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GT 630M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GT 630M | Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro 600 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro 600 holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $35), it costs 43% less, resulting in a 75.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GT 630M | Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+75.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($35) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 630M and Quadro 600

GeForce GT 630M
The GeForce GT 630M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from Up to 900 MHz to 950 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 521 points.

Quadro 600
The Quadro 600 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 7 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1430 MHz to 1620 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 522 points. Launch price was $178.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 630M scores 521 and the Quadro 600 reaches 522 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 630M is built on Kepler while the Quadro 600 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 630M) vs 384 (Quadro 600). Raw compute: 0.7296 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 630M) vs 1.244 TFLOPS (Quadro 600). Boost clocks: 950 MHz vs 1620 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GT 630M | Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 521 | 522 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 1.244 TFLOPS+71% |
| Boost Clock | 950 MHz | 1620 MHz+71% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32+33% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 144 KB+350% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 630M | Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GT 630M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro 600 has 1 GB. The GeForce GT 630M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 630M) vs 1 MB (Quadro 600) — the Quadro 600 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GT 630M | Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+100% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 630M draws 45W versus the Quadro 600's 40W — a 11.8% difference. The Quadro 600 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 630M) vs 350W (Quadro 600). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GT 630M | Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 45W | 40W-11% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 11.6 | 13.1+13% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro 600 costs 42.9% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 14.9 (GeForce GT 630M) vs 26.1 (Quadro 600) — the Quadro 600 offers 75.2% better value. The Quadro 600 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GT 630M | Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $179 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $35 | $20-43% |
| Performance per Dollar | 14.9 | 26.1+75% |
| Codename | GK107 | GP107 |
| Release | March 22 2012 | February 7 2017 |
| Ranking | #828 | #558 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











