NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two NVIDIA Turing-based cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 against the GTX 1630's 24,858, a delta of 68.5% in favor of the Quadro. That is not a marginal lead; it is a generational and class-based stomping. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the Quadro RTX 5000 hits 92,309 while the GTX 1630 manages 23,695, a 74.3% advantage. If you are building a system around either of these, the benchmark results indicate the Quadro is in a completely different performance tier.

Looking at the wider context, the GTX 1630's average benchmark score of 24,277 places it at the 70th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all within a 1% delta: the GTX 780 Ti (24,236, 0.2% behind), the RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170, 0.4% behind), the RX 6600 XT (24,442, 0.7% ahead), and the RX 6800S (24,063, 0.9% behind). In other words, the GTX 1630 sits in a crowded pack where a few points separate it from cards that are far more expensive or far older. The Quadro RTX 5000, conversely, has an average score of 21,629, which is lower than its raw Geekbench numbers because its PassMark scores (DirectX 10: 113, DirectX 11: 140, DirectX 12: 59, DirectX 9: 195, G2D: 709, G3D: 15,616, GPU Compute: 6,525) drag the average down significantly. Its percentile is 67th, and its nearest rivals include the GTX 1060 6 GB (21,856, 1% ahead), the RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379, 1.2% behind), the HD 8970M (21,237, 1.8% behind), and the RX Vega M GL (21,153, 2.3% behind). The takeaway: the Quadro's average score is depressed by legacy DirectX tests, but in modern compute and Vulkan workloads, it is vastly superior.

The head-to-head table shows only two tests, and the Quadro wins both. That is a clean sweep, but the magnitude matters more than the count. The OpenCL delta of 68.5% and the Vulkan delta of 74.3% are not close calls. If you are comparing these for a specific workload, the Geekbench Vulkan score is particularly telling: the Quadro RTX 5000 delivers 3.9 times the raw Vulkan throughput of the GTX 1630. For any modern graphics API, the GTX 1630 is not a competitor to the Quadro; it is a fallback option for low-budget builds that never see professional rendering or compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the Turing architecture, but they are fundamentally different chips. The GTX 1630 is built on the TU117 die, a small 200 mm² slice with 4,700 million transistors on TSMC's 12 nm process, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 die, a massive 545 mm² chip with 13,600 million transistors at 25.0 million per mm². That is nearly three times the transistor count and more than double the die area. The TU104 is a high-end workstation part; the TU117 is an entry-level consumer chip. The process node is identical (12 nm, TSMC), so all the performance difference comes from scale and feature set.

Core counts tell the story. The GTX 1630 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is 6 times the shaders, 6 times the texture units, and 4 times the ROPs. The Quadro also includes 48 ray tracing cores and 384 tensor cores, which are absent from the GTX 1630 entirely. If you need ray tracing or AI-accelerated workloads, the GTX 1630 simply cannot do it in hardware. The pixel rate is 28.56 GPixel/s for the GTX 1630 versus 116.2 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and the texture rate is 57.12 GTexel/s versus 348.5 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1.828 TFLOPS versus 11.15 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1). Every metric scales in the Quadro's favor by a factor of 4 to 6.

Memory is another chasm. The GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s. That is 4 times the capacity and 4.7 times the bandwidth. The GTX 1630's memory clock is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). For any dataset that exceeds 4 GB, the GTX 1630 is a non-starter; the Quadro can hold multiple large scenes or models in VRAM without spilling to system memory. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both, but the Quadro's dual-slot cooler and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors reflect a 230 W TDP, versus the GTX 1630's 75 W TDP with no external power connectors. The suggested PSU is 550 W for the Quadro and 250 W for the GTX 1630. The Quadro also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1630 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 scores 92,309 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 23,695 for the GTX 1630, a 74.3% advantage. The Quadro is the clear winner for any Vulkan-based application.

Q: Can the GTX 1630 handle ray tracing or AI tasks?

A: No. The GTX 1630 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 5000 includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, so it can accelerate those workloads in hardware.

Q: How much memory do these cards have, and does it matter?

A: The GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s. For large textures, complex 3D scenes, or compute datasets, the Quadro's capacity and bandwidth are essential.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The GTX 1630 was released on 2022-06-27, while the Quadro RTX 5000 launched on 2018-08-12. Neither is a current-generation product.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 1630 has an average score of 24,277, placing it at the 70th percentile. The Quadro RTX 5000 has an average score of 21,629, at the 67th percentile. However, the Quadro's average is pulled down by low PassMark DirectX scores, which are not representative of its modern compute performance.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GTX 1630 has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro RTX 5000 has a 230 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior card for any workload that leverages modern APIs, large memory pools, or parallel compute. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 68.5% and 74.3%. If you are rendering, doing GPU compute, working with AI models, or handling large datasets, the Quadro is the only choice between these two. The GTX 1630, by contrast, is a low-power entry card that trades away memory, cores, and features for a 75 W TDP and a compact single-slot design. Its average score is higher than the Quadro's only because the Quadro's legacy DirectX benchmarks are weak, but that is an artifact of the test suite, not real-world capability.

For a professional workstation, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the pick. For a basic display adapter or a very light gaming build, the GTX 1630 suffices. There is no middle ground: these cards are not rivals in the same class. The Quadro's 16 GB VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth make it a viable choice for 4K texturing and multi-GPU setups, while the GTX 1630's 4 GB and 96.00 GB/s limit it to 1080p light loads. The die size difference (545 mm² vs 200 mm²) and transistor count (13,600 million vs 4,700 million) confirm the Quadro is a halo part. If the budget allows, the Quadro is worth every watt and every slot.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 |

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

| Chip | TU117 | TU104 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 13,600 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 545 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1740 MHz | 1620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1785 MHz | 1815 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 256 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 512 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 32 | 192 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 384 |

| Pixel Rate | 28.56 GPixel/s | 116.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 57.12 GTexel/s | 348.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.828 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1) | 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 230 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DP 1.4a | 4x DP 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |

| Release Date | 2022-06-27 | 2018-08-12 |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1630 wins on power efficiency and size. Its 75 W TDP means it can run in a small form factor system with a 250 W PSU and no external power connectors. It is a single-slot card at 145 mm long, so it fits in tight cases where the Quadro's 267 mm dual-slot design will not. For a basic office PC, a media center, or a secondary display output, the GTX 1630 is the practical choice. Its 512 shading units and 16 ROPs are enough for 2D work, light video playback, and very old games. The 70th percentile ranking shows it is not a slouch in the broader database, but its wins are all about convenience, not capability.

The Quadro RTX 5000 wins everywhere else. It has 6 times the shading units, 4 times the ROPs, and 4 times the memory bandwidth. It has 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores for ray tracing and AI inference. Its 16 GB VRAM handles datasets that would crash the GTX 1630. The Vulkan score of 92,309 is nearly 4 times the GTX 1630's 23,695, and the OpenCL score of 78,999 is over 3 times higher. For 3D rendering, scientific compute, video editing, or any professional application, the Quadro is the only viable option. The 67th percentile is misleading because the PassMark DirectX 9-12 scores are low, but those tests are ancient and do not reflect modern workloads. The Quadro's 230 W TDP and 550 W PSU requirement are the price of that performance, but for users who need it, there is no substitute in this comparison.