AMD Radeon RX 6800M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains two direct comparison points between the AMD Radeon RX 6800M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630, and the results are decisively one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800M scores 87,621 against the GTX 1630's 24,858, a 252.5% advantage for the AMD part. That is not a marginal lead; the RX 6800M delivers more than three and a half times the raw compute throughput in this API test. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RX 6800M posts 94,766 versus 23,695 for the GTX 1630, a 299.9% delta, meaning the AMD solution scores almost exactly four times higher.

These two tests represent the entirety of the shared benchmark suite in the database, so there is no scenario in the recorded data where the GTX 1630 closes the gap. The RX 6800M wins both head-to-head entries, giving it a 2-0 record. The margin in Vulkan is particularly telling because Vulkan tends to favor efficient driver overhead and modern architecture design; the RX 6800M's 299.9% lead suggests a generational chasm rather than a mere performance tier difference. Across all recorded database benchmarks, the RX 6800M averages 28,874 points, while the GTX 1630 averages 24,277. That 4,597-point average gap places the two cards in different performance conversations entirely.

Looking at the wider benchmark context, the RX 6800M's average score sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Radeon RX 570 at 28,766 (0.4% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 470 at 28,996 (0.4% slower), the AMD Radeon R9 M295X at 28,580 (1% slower), and the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175 (1% faster). The GTX 1630, by contrast, sits at the 70th percentile with an average of 24,277. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti at 24,236 (0.2% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER at 24,170 (0.4% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT at 24,442 (0.7% faster), and the AMD Radeon RX 6800S at 24,063 (0.9% slower). The RX 6800M's average is 18.9% higher than the GTX 1630's average, a substantial gap that appears consistently across the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800M wins every category where both cards have recorded benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 87,621 score reflects a compute-oriented architecture that handles general-purpose GPU workloads with far greater throughput than the GTX 1630. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 94,766 score demonstrates strong graphics API performance, which typically translates to better frame pacing and higher frame rates in Vulkan-based games. The GTX 1630 has no recorded wins in the shared benchmark set, so the database offers no evidence of any workload where it outperforms the RX 6800M.

The RX 6800M also has a broader benchmark footprint. The database lists results for 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2,238), Geekbench Metal (113,721), Passmark DirectX 10 (101), DirectX 11 (127), DirectX 12 (65), DirectX 9 (147), G2D (538), G3D (13,261), and GPU Compute (5,032). The GTX 1630 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results recorded, so the RX 6800M's additional scores indicate a wider range of tested scenarios, though these cannot be directly compared. The RX 6800M's Passmark G3D score of 13,261 and GPU Compute score of 5,032 suggest strong rasterization and compute performance, but without matching GTX 1630 results, the comparison must rely on the two shared tests and the average benchmark scores.

For use-case planning, the data points to the RX 6800M as the choice for any workload involving OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration, whether that is gaming, rendering, or compute tasks. The GTX 1630's only recorded strengths are relative to its own class; its 70th percentile placement among all GPUs means it sits above roughly 70% of the database, but the head-to-head data shows it is not competitive with the RX 6800M in any measured dimension.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and process generations. The AMD Radeon RX 6800M uses the Navi 22 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 12 nm process. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The RX 6800M has roughly 3.7 times the transistor count and a density more than double that of the GTX 1630.

The RX 6800M features 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 40 ray tracing cores. The GTX 1630 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. This means the RX 6800M has five times the shader count, five times the TMU count, four times the ROP count, and an entire ray tracing hardware block that the GTX 1630 lacks entirely. The RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and variable rate shading, while the GTX 1630 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) without those capabilities. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level compatibility is equal there.

The RX 6800M's RDNA 2.0 architecture also includes a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, giving it 24.47 TFLOPS of half-precision compute against 12.24 TFLOPS of single-precision. The GTX 1630 similarly has a 2:1 ratio, with 3.656 TFLOPS FP16 and 1.828 TFLOPS FP32. The RX 6800M's FP32 throughput is 6.7 times higher, which aligns with its much larger shader array and higher clocks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The RX 6800M has a base clock of 2116 MHz and a boost clock of 2390 MHz, with a game clock of 2300 MHz. The GTX 1630 runs at 1740 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, with no game clock listed. Memory configuration is another major divergence: the RX 6800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 16 Gbps effective. The GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s at 12 Gbps effective. The RX 6800M has four times the memory bandwidth and three times the capacity.

Power and physical design also differ sharply. The RX 6800M is rated at 145 W TDP, while the GTX 1630 draws 75 W. The RX 6800M is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, indicating it is designed for laptops or mobile platforms. The GTX 1630 is a single-slot discrete card measuring 145 mm by 69 mm by 18 mm, with a 250 W suggested PSU and display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the GTX 1630 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6800M's pixel rate is 153.0 GPixel/s and texture rate is 382.4 GTexel/s; the GTX 1630's pixel rate is 28.56 GPixel/s and texture rate is 57.12 GTexel/s.

Release timing also separates them: the RX 6800M launched on May 30, 2021, while the GTX 1630 launched on June 27, 2022. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The RX 6800M's predecessor is Polaris Mobile, while the GTX 1630's predecessor is GeForce 10 and its successor is GeForce 20.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 87,621 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 252.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630's 24,858.

Q: Does the GTX 1630 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The RX 6800M wins both recorded head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The win count is 2 for the RX 6800M and 0 for the GTX 1630.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two cards?

A: The RX 6800M has 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The GTX 1630 has 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, exactly one quarter of the AMD card's bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 6800M support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RX 6800M has 40 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The GTX 1630 has no ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare across the entire database?

A: The RX 6800M averages 28,874 points, placing it at the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 1630 averages 24,277 points at the 70th percentile. The RX 6800M's average is roughly 18.9% higher.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6800M has a 145 W TDP and uses no power connectors, as it is an integrated mobile part. The GTX 1630 has a 75 W TDP, also uses no power connectors, but recommends a 250 W system PSU.

The Verdict

The data in the database is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6800M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 in every recorded comparison. The 299.9% lead in Vulkan and 252.5% lead in OpenCL are not close margins; they represent different performance classes entirely. The RX 6800M's 74th percentile average score versus the GTX 1630's 70th percentile, combined with its roughly 19% higher average benchmark score, confirms that the AMD part sits clearly above the NVIDIA card in the database's performance hierarchy.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the RX 6800M is the only choice based on the recorded data. Its 12 GB memory, 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 40 ray tracing cores also provide headroom that the GTX 1630 cannot match, particularly for modern DirectX 12 Ultimate titles. The GTX 1630, with its 75 W TDP and single-slot design, remains a low-power option for basic desktop use, but the benchmark data shows no workload where it beats the RX 6800M.

The RX 6800M is a mobile IGP with a 145 W TDP, so it belongs in a laptop or portable platform. The GTX 1630 is a compact discrete card for desktop builds with a 250 W PSU recommendation. Buyers should select based on platform: if the system is a laptop with an RX 6800M, it delivers far superior performance; if building a low-power desktop, the GTX 1630 is the only one of the two that fits a standard slot. Performance-wise, the RX 6800M wins decisively, and the database provides no counter-evidence.