AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 are two end-of-life graphics solutions that occupy similar overall performance tiers but achieve their results through very different means. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the NVIDIA card taking a decisive win in OpenCL compute, yet the AMD part maintains a slight edge in average benchmark score across all tests. This creates an interesting split where raw compute throughput favors one, while aggregate database scores favor the other, making the choice heavily dependent on the specific workload.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 is the clear winner in the only direct benchmark comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 24,858 against the Radeon's 17,829, a substantial 28.3% advantage. This indicates that for compute-oriented tasks that leverage OpenCL, the GTX 1630 is the superior choice. Its Turing architecture, despite having fewer shading units (512 vs. 2,048), delivers higher efficiency per core, which is evident in this workload. The GTX 1630 also benefits from a much higher boost clock of 1,785 MHz compared to the Radeon's unspecified clock speeds, contributing to its compute lead.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X, conversely, wins on aggregate performance metrics. Its average benchmark score of 25,891 edges out the GTX 1630's 24,277 by roughly 6.6%. This is largely driven by its strong showing in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 33,953—a result not mirrored by the NVIDIA card, which lacks a Metal entry in its benchmark suite. For users in ecosystems that prioritize Metal (such as macOS environments), the Radeon is the only option with a documented score, and it is a high one. The Radeon also holds a slight advantage in its nearest rival comparisons: it sits within 0.1% of the AMD FirePro W7100 and 0.2% of the FirePro D700, while the GTX 1630 is 0.2% ahead of the GTX 780 Ti and 0.4% ahead of the RTX 2080 SUPER. This suggests the Radeon's performance profile is more consistent with professional-grade workstation parts, while the GTX 1630 aligns more with consumer gaming hardware.

For gaming, the data is less clear, as no gaming-specific benchmarks are provided. However, the GTX 1630's higher pixel rate (28.56 GPixel/s vs. 23.14 GPixel/s) and faster memory clock (12 Gbps effective vs. 5 Gbps effective) suggest it may handle rasterization-heavy tasks better. The Radeon counters with double the texture rate (92.54 GTexel/s vs. 57.12 GTexel/s) and quadruple the memory bus width (256-bit vs. 64-bit), which could benefit texture-heavy scenes. The choice here hinges on whether the workload is compute-bound (GTX 1630) or bandwidth-bound (R9 M395X).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M395X leads with an average benchmark score of 25,891, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630's 24,277. This places the Radeon in the 71st percentile of all GPUs, versus the GTX 1630's 70th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1630 in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 1630 scores 24,858 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 28.3% higher than the R9 M395X's score of 17,829. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it is a decisive win for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the Radeon R9 M395X have any benchmark result the GTX 1630 lacks?

A: Yes, the Radeon has a Geekbench Metal score of 33,953, which is not listed for the GTX 1630. This suggests the AMD card is better suited for platforms relying on Apple's Metal API.

Q: What are the nearest performance rivals for each card?

A: The R9 M395X is within 0.1% of the AMD FirePro W7100 and 0.2% of the AMD FirePro D700. The GTX 1630 is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti and 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, built on a 12 nm process, has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon R9 M395X, on a 28 nm process, has a density of just 13.7M per mm².

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The R9 M395X features 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark result is overwhelmingly in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1630 posts a score of 24,858, while the Radeon R9 M395X manages only 17,829. This represents a delta of -28.3% for the AMD card, meaning the NVIDIA part is approximately 39% faster in this specific workload. This is a massive gap, especially considering that the Radeon has four times the shading units (2,048 vs. 512) and four times the texture mapping units (128 vs. 32). The GTX 1630 wins despite these hardware disadvantages, which points to architectural efficiency. Its Turing-based design, with a boost clock of 1,785 MHz, extracts far more performance per shader than the older GCN 3.0 architecture in the Radeon, which has no listed boost clock.

However, the aggregate picture is more nuanced. The Radeon's average benchmark score of 25,891 is higher than the GTX 1630's 24,277, a difference of about 6.6%. This is because the Radeon's Metal score of 33,953 is exceptionally high, and when averaged with its OpenCL score, it lifts the overall figure. The GTX 1630's two scores—24,858 in OpenCL and 23,695 in Vulkan—are more consistent but lower in peak value. The Radeon also compares favorably to its nearest rivals: it is 0.1% above the FirePro W7100 and 0.2% above the FirePro D700, both of which are professional cards. The GTX 1630, meanwhile, is 0.2% above the GTX 780 Ti and 0.4% above the RTX 2080 SUPER, showing it competes with much older and much newer NVIDIA parts respectively.

In terms of raw throughput, the Radeon has a clear theoretical advantage in texture fill rate (92.54 GTexel/s vs. 57.12 GTexel/s) and FP32 compute (2.961 TFLOPS vs. 1.828 TFLOPS). Yet the GTX 1630 has a higher pixel rate (28.56 GPixel/s vs. 23.14 GPixel/s) and a much faster memory clock (12 Gbps vs. 5 Gbps effective). These numbers suggest that the NVIDIA card is more balanced in raster operations, while the AMD card is a brute-force compute engine. The benchmark data, however, contradicts the FP32 advantage, showing that raw TFLOPS do not translate directly to OpenCL performance in this comparison.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is in memory configuration. The Radeon R9 M395X offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1630 has half the capacity at 4 GB, uses faster GDDR6, but only on a 64-bit bus, resulting in 96.00 GB/s—a 40% reduction in bandwidth. This makes the Radeon far better suited for large data sets, while the GTX 1630's narrower bus is offset by higher clocked memory.

Shader and texture resources also differ drastically. The Radeon has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1630 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—one-quarter and one-half of the AMD card's counts, respectively. Despite this, the GTX 1630 achieves higher pixel throughput (28.56 GPixel/s vs. 23.14 GPixel/s), indicating superior per-ROP efficiency.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The GTX 1630 has a base clock of 1,740 MHz and a boost clock of 1,785 MHz. The Radeon has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1,250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), compared to the GTX 1630's memory clock of 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card's memory is more than twice as fast in effective data rate.

Physical and interface specs also differ. The Radeon is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the GTX 1630 is a single-slot card measuring 145 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 18 mm in width, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and have a 75 W TDP, but the GTX 1630 offers discrete display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the Radeon's outputs are portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Amethyst chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7M per mm². This is a large, power-inefficient design by modern standards, but it was designed for mobile workstations, as evidenced by its MXM form factor. Its FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), indicating no dedicated half-precision acceleration.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, also fabricated by TSMC but on a more advanced 12 nm process. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a much smaller 200 mm² die, giving it a significantly higher transistor density of 23.5M per mm². Turing brings architectural improvements that allow the GTX 1630 to achieve 1.828 TFLOPS of FP32 but 3.656 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), meaning it has specialized hardware for half-precision workloads. This is a key differentiator: the Radeon treats FP16 and FP32 equally, while NVIDIA doubles throughput for FP16.

The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs. 12_0) on the NVIDIA card suggests better support for newer rendering features. The GTX 1630 also has a more recent Vulkan version (1.4 vs. 1.2.170), which may improve compatibility with modern games and applications.

The Radeon's GCN 3.0 architecture is from 2015, while the GTX 1630's Turing design is from 2022, reflecting a seven-year gap in architectural development. This explains why the newer, smaller NVIDIA chip outperforms the older, larger AMD chip in compute benchmarks despite having far fewer resources. The Radeon's 366 mm² die is nearly twice the size of the GTX 1630's 200 mm², yet it trails in OpenCL, underscoring the efficiency gains of Turing over GCN. Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores, making them pure rasterization and compute parts.