NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 occupy opposite ends of the performance spectrum, and the benchmark data confirms this gulf. In the two head-to-head tests available, the RTX 3080 decisively outperforms the GTX 1630, though the margin varies significantly by workload. The GTX 1630 holds a 70th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the RTX 3080 sits at the 68th percentile, indicating that the former’s average score is buoyed by a narrower test set, whereas the latter’s ranking is dragged down by a broader range of benchmarks including legacy DirectX tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result comes from the Geekbench OpenCL test. The RTX 3080 scores 152,423, while the GTX 1630 manages only 24,858. This represents an 83.7% deficit for the GTX 1630, meaning the RTX 3080 delivers roughly six times the compute throughput in this API-agnostic workload. The magnitude of this difference is consistent with the raw specifications: the RTX 3080 carries 8,704 shading units versus 512 on the GTX 1630, and its FP32 throughput is listed at 29.77 TFLOPS compared to 1.828 TFLOPS. The OpenCL result is a pure compute test, and here the Ampere architecture’s massive shader count simply overwhelms the Turing-based GTX 1630.

The Vulkan head-to-head shows a smaller but still substantial gap. The RTX 3080 scores 33,620, while the GTX 1630 scores 23,695, a 29.5% difference. Vulkan’s lower overhead and the GTX 1630’s higher base clock (1740 MHz versus 1440 MHz) help narrow the gap, but the RTX 3080’s additional hardware resources still prevail. The GTX 1630’s boost clock of 1785 MHz is also higher than the RTX 3080’s 1710 MHz, yet the 3080’s 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus provides a bandwidth of 760.3 GB/s, dwarfing the GTX 1630’s 96.00 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. This memory bandwidth advantage is likely a significant factor in the Vulkan result, as modern rendering workloads frequently become bandwidth-limited.

The benchmark list for the RTX 3080 includes several PassMark tests where the GTX 1630 has no comparable scores. The RTX 3080 achieves a PassMark G3D score of 25,086 and a GPU Compute score of 14,397. These results, while not directly comparable to the GTX 1630, contextualize the RTX 3080’s overall standing. Its average benchmark score of 23,172 is actually lower than the GTX 1630’s average of 24,277, but this is because the RTX 3080’s average includes scores from legacy DirectX 9, 10, and 11 tests (258, 170, and 207 respectively) that drag down its mean. In modern APIs, the RTX 3080’s advantage is overwhelming, as shown by the OpenCL delta.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1630 has a higher average benchmark score of 24,277, compared to the RTX 3080’s 23,172. However, this is misleading because the RTX 3080’s average includes legacy PassMark DirectX 9/10/11 scores, while the GTX 1630 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX 3080 leads by 83.7%. The RTX 3080 scores 152,423 versus the GTX 1630’s 24,858.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX 3080 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 33,620, which is 29.5% higher than the GTX 1630’s 23,695.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The GTX 1630 has a higher boost clock of 1785 MHz, while the RTX 3080 boosts to 1710 MHz. The GTX 1630 also has a higher base clock at 1740 MHz versus 1440 MHz.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two architectures?

A: The RTX 3080’s GA102 chip has a transistor density of 45.1M per mm², while the GTX 1630’s TU117 chip has a density of 23.5M per mm², despite the GTX 1630 using a 12 nm process versus the RTX 3080’s 8 nm process.

Q: Does the RTX 3080 support any features that the GTX 1630 lacks?

A: Yes, the RTX 3080 includes 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores, while the GTX 1630 has none. Additionally, the RTX 3080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1630 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, while the RTX 3080 uses the GA102 chip fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm node. This process difference is reflected in transistor density: the RTX 3080 packs 45.1M transistors per mm² versus the GTX 1630’s 23.5M per mm². The total transistor count tells a similar story, with the RTX 3080 at 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, compared to the GTX 1630’s 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The GTX 1630 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3080 uses 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus, delivering 760.3 GB/s. This 8x difference in bandwidth is a core architectural advantage for the RTX 3080, enabling much higher texture and pixel rates: 465.1 GTexel/s versus 57.12 GTexel/s, and 164.2 GPixel/s versus 28.56 GPixel/s.

The compute capabilities diverge sharply. The RTX 3080 has 8,704 shading units, 272 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The GTX 1630 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Critically, the RTX 3080 adds 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores, which the GTX 1630 lacks entirely. This enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features on the RTX 3080, while the GTX 1630 relies purely on traditional rasterization. The FP16 performance also differs: the RTX 3080 achieves 29.77 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the GTX 1630 reaches 3.656 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, indicating the RTX 3080’s more robust compute pipeline.

The power and physical requirements reflect these architectural differences. The RTX 3080 has a TDP of 320 W and requires a 700 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 1630’s TDP is 75 W with a 250 W suggested PSU. The RTX 3080 is a dual-slot card measuring 285 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, whereas the GTX 1630 is a single-slot card at 145 mm, 69 mm, and 18 mm. The RTX 3080 uses a 1x 12-pin power connector, while the GTX 1630 has none. The bus interface also differs, with the RTX 3080 using PCIe 4.0 x16 and the GTX 1630 using PCIe 3.0 x16.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear choice for different use cases. For any workload that stresses raw compute or modern graphics APIs, the RTX 3080 is the superior product. Its OpenCL score of 152,423 is nearly six times higher than the GTX 1630’s 24,858, and even in Vulkan, where the GTX 1630’s higher clocks help, the RTX 3080 still leads by 29.5%. The RTX 3080’s 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 760.3 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for high-resolution texture-heavy workloads, while the GTX 1630’s 4 GB and 96.00 GB/s will be a bottleneck in such scenarios.

However, the GTX 1630 is not without merit. It has a higher average benchmark score (24,277 versus 23,172) due to its limited test set, and its lower TDP of 75 W means it can run in systems with a 250 W PSU, whereas the RTX 3080 requires 700 W. The GTX 1630’s single-slot design and 145 mm length allow it to fit in compact cases, and its lack of power connectors simplifies installation. For users with older PCIe 3.0 motherboards, the GTX 1630’s bus interface matches, while the RTX 3080’s PCIe 4.0 interface will run at reduced bandwidth.

The percentile rankings complicate the verdict. The GTX 1630 sits at the 70th percentile, while the RTX 3080 is at the 68th. This counterintuitive result stems from the RTX 3080’s inclusion of legacy PassMark scores, which penalize its average. In contrast, the GTX 1630’s two modern benchmark scores are relatively strong for its class. The data suggests that for users prioritizing modern API performance, the RTX 3080 is unmatched. For users prioritizing compatibility with low-power systems and compact builds, the GTX 1630 is the more practical choice.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: GTX 1630 uses 12 nm (TSMC); RTX 3080 uses 8 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: GTX 1630 has 4,700 million; RTX 3080 has 28,300 million
• Die Size: GTX 1630 is 200 mm²; RTX 3080 is 628 mm²
• Base Clock: GTX 1630 runs at 1740 MHz; RTX 3080 at 1440 MHz
• Boost Clock: GTX 1630 boosts to 1785 MHz; RTX 3080 to 1710 MHz
• Memory Size: GTX 1630 has 4 GB GDDR6; RTX 3080 has 10 GB GDDR6X
• Memory Bus: GTX 1630 uses a 64-bit bus; RTX 3080 uses a 320-bit bus
• Memory Bandwidth: GTX 1630 delivers 96.00 GB/s; RTX 3080 delivers 760.3 GB/s
• Shading Units: GTX 1630 has 512; RTX 3080 has 8,704
• TMUs: GTX 1630 has 32; RTX 3080 has 272
• ROPs: GTX 1630 has 16; RTX 3080 has 96
• RT Cores: GTX 1630 has none; RTX 3080 has 68
• Tensor Cores: GTX 1630 has none; RTX 3080 has 272
• Pixel Rate: GTX 1630 is 28.56 GPixel/s; RTX 3080 is 164.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: GTX 1630 is 57.12 GTexel/s; RTX 3080 is 465.1 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: GTX 1630 is 1.828 TFLOPS; RTX 3080 is 29.77 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: GTX 1630 is 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1); RTX 3080 is 29.77 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: GTX 1630 is 75 W; RTX 3080 is 320 W
• Slot Width: GTX 1630 is single-slot; RTX 3080 is dual-slot
• Power Connectors: GTX 1630 has none; RTX 3080 has 1x 12-pin
• Suggested PSU: GTX 1630 is 250 W; RTX 3080 is 700 W
• Bus Interface: GTX 1630 is PCIe 3.0 x16; RTX 3080 is PCIe 4.0 x16
• DirectX Support: GTX 1630 is 12 (12_1); RTX 3080 is 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Dimensions: GTX 1630 is 145 mm x 69 mm x 18 mm; RTX 3080 is 285 mm x 112 mm x 40 mm

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 wins in:

• OpenCL compute workloads, with an 83.7% lead over the GTX 1630 (152,423 vs 24,858)
• Vulkan rendering, leading by 29.5% (33,620 vs 23,695)
• High-bandwidth applications, given its 760.3 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s
• Ray tracing and AI workloads, thanks to its 68 RT cores and 272 tensor cores
• High-resolution gaming, where 10 GB of GDDR6X memory and 164.2 GPixel/s pixel rate are advantageous

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 wins in:

• Average benchmark score, at 24,277 versus the RTX 3080’s 23,172, though this reflects a narrower test suite
• Power efficiency, with a 75 W TDP versus 320 W, and a 250 W suggested PSU versus 700 W
• Physical size, being single-slot and 145 mm long versus the RTX 3080’s dual-slot 285 mm length
• Clock speeds, with a base clock of 1740 MHz and boost of 1785 MHz, both higher than the RTX 3080’s 1440 MHz and 1710 MHz
• Legacy compatibility, as it uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RTX 3080’s PCIe 4.0 x16 requires newer platforms for full bandwidth