Radeon R9 M395 vs GeForce GTX 1630
Radeon R9 M395
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1630
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. The Radeon R9 M395 is positioned at rank #283 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R9 M395
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1630
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1630 is significantly newer (2022 vs 2015). The GeForce GTX 1630 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 M395 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1630 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.2% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 M395.
| Insight | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN (2012−2015)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1630 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $90 versus $300 for the Radeon R9 M395, it costs 70% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 237.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+237.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅More affordable ($90) |
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 Radeon R9 M395 and GeForce GTX 1630
Radeon R9 M395
The Radeon R9 M395 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 9 2015. It features the GCN architecture. The core clock speed is 834 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,934 points.
GeForce GTX 1630
The GeForce GTX 1630 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2022. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1740 MHz to 1785 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,992 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 M395 scores 4,934 and the GeForce GTX 1630 reaches 4,992 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 M395 is built on GCN while the GeForce GTX 1630 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,792 (Radeon R9 M395) vs 512 (GeForce GTX 1630).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,934 | 4,992+1% |
| Architecture | GCN | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1792+250% | 512 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R9 M395 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1630 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1630 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 176 GB/s (Radeon R9 M395) vs 96 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1630) — a 83.3% advantage for the Radeon R9 M395. Bus width: 256-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 176 GB/s+83% | 96 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+300% | 64-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FL12_0) (Radeon R9 M395) vs 12 Ultimate (GeForce GTX 1630). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (FL12_0) | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: UVD (Radeon R9 M395) vs NVENC 6th gen (GeForce GTX 1630). Decoder: VCE vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4 (Radeon R9 M395) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1630).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD | NVENC 6th gen |
| Decoder | VCE | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,MPEG-4 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 M395 draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1630's 75W — a 0% difference. The GeForce GTX 1630 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R9 M395) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1630). Power connectors: Mobile vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 145mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 60°C.
| Feature | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Mobile | None |
| Length | 0mm | 145mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 60°C-20% |
| Perf/Watt | 65.8 | 66.6+1% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 M395 launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the GeForce GTX 1630 launched at $150 and now averages $90. The GeForce GTX 1630 costs 70% less ($210 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 16.4 (Radeon R9 M395) vs 55.5 (GeForce GTX 1630) — the GeForce GTX 1630 offers 238.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1630 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon R9 M395 | GeForce GTX 1630 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | $150-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $90-70% |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.4 | 55.5+238% |
| Codename | — | TU117 |
| Release | June 9 2015 | June 28 2022 |
| Ranking | #445 | #444 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 M395 and GeForce GTX 1630
