AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 is a study in extremes—a professional workstation card built on a 7nm process with 10.3 billion transistors, facing a low-power entry-level GPU on a 12nm node with only 4.7 billion. The benchmark data shows a decisive, one-sided contest: the AMD card wins both head-to-head tests, with the GeForce GTX 1630 trailing by roughly 200% in each. This is not a close competition, but the numeric gap reveals a great deal about how architecture, memory, and market positioning shape real-world performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available cross-comparison tests paint a very clear picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 scores 74,613, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 manages only 24,858. That is a delta of 200.2% in favor of the AMD card—meaning it delivers triple the raw compute performance in this API-agnostic workload. The Vulkan test tells the same story: AMD scores 70,706 against NVIDIA’s 23,695, a 198.4% advantage. Both deltas are nearly identical, suggesting the gap is consistent across different compute frameworks rather than being an artifact of one API.

These are not marginal wins. The AMD’s average benchmark score of 25,726 places it at the 71st percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (25,740, -0.1%) and AMD Radeon RX 6700M (25,633, +0.4%). The NVIDIA card, by contrast, averages 24,277—just barely lower—and sits at the 70th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 780 Ti (24,236, +0.2%) and the RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170, +0.4%). What this means is that the GTX 1630 is not a weak card in absolute terms; it sits in the same performance tier as the W5700’s average. The W5700 wins by a landslide in the specific OpenCL and Vulkan tests, yet its overall average is only 6% higher than the GTX 1630’s (25,726 vs 24,277). That contradiction suggests the GTX 1630 excels in other benchmark categories not shared here, or that the W5700’s average is dragged down by its professional-grade workloads.

The data implies that the W5700’s compute-heavy architecture is optimized for tasks like OpenCL and Vulkan, where its 8.663 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) capabilities shine. The GTX 1630’s much lower 1.828 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.656 TFLOPS FP16 simply cannot compete in those raw compute tests. The wins are absolute, but they are also narrow in scope—only two tests are available for direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap starts with the process node: the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 uses a 7nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 uses a 12nm TSMC node. That difference is reflected in transistor density—41.0M transistors per mm² for AMD versus 23.5M for NVIDIA. The AMD chip, Navi 10, packs 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die, while NVIDIA’s TU117 fits just 4,700 million into a 200 mm² die. This is a fundamental difference in design philosophy: AMD chose a larger, denser chip for professional compute, while NVIDIA opted for a smaller, more power-efficient part.

The memory subsystem is where the two diverge most drastically. The W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1630 has only 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 96.00 GB/s—a quarter of the bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: AMD runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). This bandwidth disparity is likely the single largest contributor to the benchmark gap, as compute-heavy workloads are often memory-bound.

Core counts reinforce the separation. The W5700 has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 1630 has just 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither card has RT or tensor cores, so ray tracing and AI acceleration are absent on both. Pixel rate and texture rate tell the same story: 120.3 GPixel/s and 270.7 GTexel/s for AMD, versus 28.56 GPixel/s and 57.12 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The AMD card also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the NVIDIA card is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16—a difference that matters for data transfer in professional workflows.

Power draw reflects the performance gap: the W5700 is rated at 205 W with a 550 W suggested PSU and dual-slot cooling, while the GTX 1630 sips 75 W with no power connector and a 250 W PSU. The physical size difference is stark—267 mm length for AMD versus 145 mm for NVIDIA—and the display outputs differ, with AMD offering 5x mini-DisplayPort and USB Type-C, while NVIDIA provides DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 wins decisively in compute-heavy benchmarks. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are roughly 200% higher than the GTX 1630’s, which indicates a massive advantage in tasks like rendering, simulation, and GPU-accelerated analytics. The 448 GB/s memory bandwidth and 8 GB frame buffer make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 8.663 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) positions it as a serious compute card, and the 5x mini-DisplayPort outputs suggest multi-display professional environments.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, despite losing both head-to-head tests, holds its own in the broader benchmark landscape. Its average score of 24,277 places it nearly on par with the W5700’s 25,726 average, and its 70th percentile ranking shows it is not a weak card overall. The GTX 1630’s wins would likely come in scenarios that favor its lower power draw and compact size—75 W TDP, single-slot, and 145 mm length make it ideal for small form factor builds or legacy systems with weak power supplies. Its 4 GB memory and 96 GB/s bandwidth are enough for lighter workloads like 2D rendering or basic video playback, and its single DVI output suggests compatibility with older monitors.

The data implies the GTX 1630 is a card for basic desktop use, while the W5700 is a workstation tool. Neither card supports ray tracing, so that is not a differentiator. The GTX 1630’s higher base clock (1740 MHz vs 1400 MHz) and boost clock (1785 MHz vs 1880 MHz) show that NVIDIA compensates for fewer cores with higher frequencies, but that strategy fails in compute tests where core count and memory bandwidth dominate.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 has an average benchmark score of 25,726, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 averages 24,277—a difference of about 6%.

Q: How much faster is the AMD card in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 scores 74,613 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 200.2% higher than the GTX 1630’s 24,858.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 have null RT core counts, meaning neither offers hardware ray tracing.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD card has 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card has 96.00 GB/s—a 4.67x difference in favor of AMD.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 has 2304 shading units, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630’s 512 shading units.

Q: What is the transistor count on each card?

A: The AMD card has 10,300 million transistors, while the NVIDIA card has 4,700 million—a difference of 5,600 million.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any workload that stresses compute or memory bandwidth, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is the superior choice. Its 200% lead in OpenCL and Vulkan tests, combined with 8 GB of memory and 448 GB/s bandwidth, makes it a capable professional card. The GTX 1630’s 4 GB memory and 96 GB/s bandwidth are simply insufficient for the same tasks. The 71st percentile ranking for AMD versus 70th for NVIDIA is a tie, but the head-to-head results break that tie decisively.

However, the GTX 1630 is not without merit. Its 75 W power draw, single-slot design, and 145 mm length make it a candidate for compact or low-power systems where the W5700’s 205 W TDP and 267 mm length would not fit. The GTX 1630’s 12nm process and 4.7 billion transistors are outdated, but its higher clock speeds (1740 MHz base) show NVIDIA’s attempt to maximize performance per watt. For a user with a 250 W PSU and no PCIe power connector, the GTX 1630 is the only viable option between these two.

The verdict comes down to use case. If the priority is raw compute, the W5700 wins without question. If the priority is power efficiency and physical footprint, the GTX 1630 is the pragmatic pick. The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the GTX 1630 outperforms the W5700 in compute, but it does support the GTX 1630 as a low-power alternative for basic tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W5700 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 41.0M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1400 MHz | 1740 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1880 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 512 |

| TMUs | 144 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 120.3 GPixel/s | 28.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 270.7 GTexel/s | 57.12 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.663 TFLOPS | 1.828 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1) | 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 205 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 5x mini-DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | Not specified | 18 mm (0.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2019-11-18 | 2022-06-27 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | GeForce 10 |

| Successor | Not specified | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | 799 USD | Not specified |