NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 wins every head-to-head benchmark against the GTX 1630. In the two directly comparable tests, the RTX 3090 delivers a 595% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 172,758 versus 24,858. That is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the RTX 3090 posting 53,927 against 23,695, a 127.6% lead. Both results confirm that the RTX 3090 operates in a completely different performance tier.

The OpenCL result is particularly striking because it reflects sustained general-purpose compute, not just gaming rasterization. The RTX 3090’s score of 172,758 places it far beyond what the GTX 1630 can approach. The GTX 1630’s 24,858 OpenCL score is itself respectable for its class, but the delta is so large that no workload where both cards are eligible would realistically favor the smaller card. The Vulkan test narrows the relative gap, but 127.6% still means the RTX 3090 more than doubles the GTX 1630’s performance in that API.

The wins tally is 2 for the RTX 3090 and 0 for the GTX 1630. There are no recorded benchmark tests where the GTX 1630 comes out ahead. The database also shows the RTX 3090 has a broader benchmark profile, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12, Passmark G2D, Passmark G3D, and Passmark GPU Compute. The GTX 1630 only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan entries. That means the RTX 3090’s dominance is not limited to two tests; it extends across a wider array of workloads, while the GTX 1630 lacks recorded results in those other categories entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3090 wins in every scenario where raw performance matters. Its average benchmark score of 27,565 places it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1630’s average of 24,277 sits at the 70th percentile. Although the percentile difference is small, the absolute score gap is meaningful: the RTX 3090 is roughly 13.5% higher on average. The RTX 3090’s nearest rivals include the RTX 4070 Mobile and RX 6700 XT, each within 0.5% of its average score, and the RX 7800M at 1.1% higher. This means the RTX 3090 is competitive with modern mid-range and high-end cards, not just older flagships.

The GTX 1630, by contrast, sits among older and lower-tier hardware. Its nearest rivals include the GTX 780 Ti (0.2% higher), the RTX 2080 SUPER (0.4% higher), and the RX 6600 XT (0.7% higher). Those deltas are all under 1%, meaning the GTX 1630 is effectively in the same performance cluster as those cards, but none of them are modern flagship parts. The GTX 1630’s role is limited to light gaming, basic desktop acceleration, and legacy DirectX workloads. It is not a card for high-resolution gaming, ray tracing, or compute-heavy tasks.

For use-case splits, the RTX 3090 is the choice for 4K gaming, content creation, machine learning inference, and any workload that benefits from massive memory bandwidth and high FP32 throughput. The GTX 1630 is suited for 1080p esports at low settings, office productivity, and media playback. The data supports this: the RTX 3090 has a 936.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the GTX 1630 has 96.00 GB/s. That is a 9.75x difference in raw memory throughput, which directly impacts texture streaming, high-resolution assets, and compute kernels.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and foundries. The RTX 3090 uses the GA102 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. The GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The transistor density is also different: 45.1M per mm² for the RTX 3090 versus 23.5M per mm² for the GTX 1630. The RTX 3090 therefore packs more than six times the transistors into roughly three times the die area.

The RTX 3090 is built on Ampere architecture, while the GTX 1630 is Turing. The RTX 3090 includes 82 RT cores and 328 tensor cores, while the GTX 1630 has none of either. That means the RTX 3090 supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features like DLSS, whereas the GTX 1630 cannot. The shading unit count is also vastly different: 10,496 on the RTX 3090 versus 512 on the GTX 1630. The texture mapping units (TMUs) are 328 versus 32, and the render output units (ROPs) are 112 versus 16.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The RTX 3090 uses 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, while the GTX 1630 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The effective memory clock is 19.5 Gbps for the RTX 3090 versus 12 Gbps for the GTX 1630. The API support also differs: the RTX 3090 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1630 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 3090 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the GTX 1630 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power delivery is another major split: the RTX 3090 requires a 350 W TDP with a 12-pin connector and a suggested 750 W PSU, while the GTX 1630 has a 75 W TDP, no external power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 3090 delivers 35.58 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.828 TFLOPS for the GTX 1630. The RTX 3090 also has a 556.0 GTexel/s texture rate versus 57.12 GTexel/s, and a 189.8 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 28.56 GPixel/s.

Q: Does the GTX 1630 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 1630 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, so it lacks hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI acceleration. The RTX 3090 has 82 RT cores and 328 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 3090 has 24 GB of GDDR6X memory, while the GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6. The bus width is 384-bit versus 64-bit, and memory bandwidth is 936.2 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The GTX 1630 has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested 250 W PSU. The RTX 3090 has a 350 W TDP, uses a 12-pin connector, and requires a suggested 750 W PSU.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX 3090 has an average benchmark score of 27,565, placing it in the 73rd percentile. The GTX 1630 has an average of 24,277, placing it in the 70th percentile. The RTX 3090 is about 13.5% higher.

Q: Can the GTX 1630 run modern DirectX 12 Ultimate titles?

A: No. The GTX 1630 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 3090 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |

| Chip | GA102 | TU117 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 12 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1395 MHz | 1740 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1695 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 936.2 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10496 | 512 |

| TMUs | 328 | 32 |

| ROPs | 112 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 82 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 328 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 189.8 GPixel/s | 28.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 556.0 GTexel/s | 57.12 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 35.58 TFLOPS | 1.828 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 350 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 12-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 750 W | 250 W |

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | 336 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm | 145 mm x 69 mm x 18 mm |

| Release Date | 2020-08-31 | 2022-06-27 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,499 USD | Not available |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RTX 3090 is the only choice for any GPU-bound workload that demands high performance. Its average benchmark score of 27,565 is roughly 13.5% higher than the GTX 1630’s 24,277, but the head-to-head results are far more dramatic. In OpenCL, the RTX 3090 is 595% faster; in Vulkan, it is 127.6% faster. Those are not incremental improvements, they are entirely different performance classes.

The RTX 3090 is for users who need 24 GB of GDDR6X memory, 936.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 35.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It can handle ray tracing with its 82 RT cores, and its 328 tensor cores enable AI features. The GTX 1630 cannot do any of that. It has no RT cores, no tensor cores, and only 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. Its 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for low-power systems, but that is its only practical advantage.

The percentile ranking difference is small (73rd versus 70th), but that is because the GTX 1630 is placed among older and lower-tier cards. Its nearest rivals are the GTX 780 Ti and RTX 2080 SUPER, which are not modern flagships. The RTX 3090’s nearest rivals include the RTX 4070 Mobile and RX 6700 XT, indicating it still competes with contemporary mid-range and high-end hardware. Anyone selecting between these two cards should pick the RTX 3090 for serious gaming, compute, or content creation. The GTX 1630 is only sensible for basic display output or extremely light gaming where power consumption is the primary concern.