NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data confirms this stark divide. The RTX A4000, a workstation-focused Ampere part, delivers a level of compute performance that dwarfs the entry-level GTX 1630, which is built on older Turing architecture. While both cards share the NVIDIA brand, their architectural goals, memory configurations, and resulting performance profiles are entirely different, making the choice between them straightforward for any workload that demands graphical or compute muscle.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison in the data is limited to two compute-oriented tests, but the results are decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A4000 scores 105,739, while the GTX 1630 manages only 24,858. This translates to a 325.4% advantage for the RTX A4000, meaning it delivers over four times the OpenCL compute performance. The margin is even larger in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the RTX A4000 scores 127,645 against the GTX 1630's 23,695, a 438.7% lead. This indicates that the RTX A4000's advantage grows in a modern low-level API environment, likely due to its significantly larger shader array and dedicated hardware for ray tracing and tensor operations.

The RTX A4000 wins both available head-to-head benchmarks, securing a 2-0 record. Its average benchmark score of 26,683 places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1630's average score of 24,277 puts it in the 70th percentile. Although the percentile difference appears small, the raw score gap of roughly 2,400 points is substantial. The RTX A4000's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.5% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (1.3% delta), show that its average score is highly competitive within its own performance tier. Conversely, the GTX 1630 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (-0.7% delta), confirming its position in a much lower performance bracket.

Looking beyond the shared tests, the RTX A4000 has a full suite of additional benchmarks that illustrate its capabilities. Its Passmark G3D score of 19,459 and GPU Compute score of 9,760 are indicative of a card that can handle demanding 3D rendering and general-purpose compute workloads. The GTX 1630 lacks these additional data points, which limits the scope of direct comparison, but the available evidence from the Geekbench tests is sufficient to establish a clear hierarchy. The RTX A4000 is not just faster; it is in a different performance class altogether.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is fundamental. The RTX A4000 is built on the Ampere architecture using a GA104 chip fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It houses 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 44.4M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 1630 uses the Turing architecture (specifically the TU117 chip) on a 12 nm process from TSMC, with just 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die and a density of 23.5M per mm². This means the RTX A4000 packs nearly four times the transistors into a die that is roughly twice the size, highlighting the massive compute resources available to it.

The most significant functional difference is the presence of dedicated hardware on the RTX A4000. It features 48 RT cores for real-time ray tracing and 192 tensor cores for AI acceleration, while the GTX 1630 has none of either. This makes the RTX A4000 a capable platform for workloads that leverage ray-traced rendering or DLSS-style upscaling, whereas the GTX 1630 is entirely reliant on traditional rasterization. The RTX A4000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the GTX 1630 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

The compute resources further emphasize the difference. The RTX A4000 has 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 1630 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 12-to-1 ratio in shading units directly explains the massive performance gap. The RTX A4000 also boasts 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and an equal 19.17 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 1630 delivers just 1.828 TFLOPS of FP32 and 3.656 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio). The RTX A4000's FP32 output is over ten times higher, and its FP16 performance is also significantly stronger.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the RTX A4000 for any serious workload. Its 438.7% lead in Vulkan and 325.4% lead in OpenCL demonstrate that it is not merely a faster card; it is a fundamentally more capable compute device. The presence of RT and tensor cores, combined with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, positions it for professional applications like 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and AI inference.

The GTX 1630, by contrast, is a low-power, entry-level card. Its 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a simple drop-in solution for basic desktop use, but its 4 GB of VRAM and 64-bit memory bus severely limit its utility in modern applications. Its benchmark scores place it near older high-end cards like the GTX 780 Ti, which shows its performance is roughly a decade old.

For a professional user or enthusiast seeking maximum compute performance, the RTX A4000 is the only choice. For a user with basic display needs who requires no compute acceleration, the GTX 1630 could suffice, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the RTX A4000. The RTX A4000 wins every benchmark in the comparison.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A4000 in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The RTX A4000 scores 127,645 compared to the GTX 1630's 23,695, which represents a 438.7% performance advantage.

Q: Does the GTX 1630 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 1630 has no RT cores, while the RTX A4000 includes 48 dedicated RT cores.

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

A: The RTX A4000 has a memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s, while the GTX 1630 has a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A4000 has an average benchmark score of 26,683, which is higher than the GTX 1630's average of 24,277.

Q: Are both cards based on the same GPU architecture?

A: No. The RTX A4000 uses the Ampere architecture, while the GTX 1630 uses the older Turing architecture.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RTX A4000 is fabricated on an 8 nm process, while the GTX 1630 is fabricated on a 12 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 wins in every measurable benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it delivers a 325.4% higher score, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it is 438.7% higher. These wins are driven by its superior hardware: 6,144 shading units versus 512, and 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1.828 TFLOPS. The RTX A4000 is also the only card with RT and tensor cores, meaning it is the sole option for ray-traced workloads and AI-accelerated tasks. Its 16 GB of VRAM and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth provide ample headroom for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The GTX 1630's wins are limited to physical attributes rather than performance. It is significantly smaller, measuring 145 mm in length versus the RTX A4000's 241 mm, and it requires no external power connectors, drawing a maximum of 75 W compared to the RTX A4000's 140 W. The GTX 1630 also has a higher base clock of 1740 MHz versus 735 MHz, and a boost clock of 1785 MHz versus 1560 MHz. However, these clock advantages do not translate into any benchmark victory, as the RTX A4000's massive core count overcomes the frequency deficit. The GTX 1630 is also the only card with a DVI output, alongside its HDMI and DisplayPort connections.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 |

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

| Chip | GA104 | TU117 |

| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Base Clock | 735 MHz | 1740 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1560 MHz | 1785 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 6144 | 512 |

| TMUs | 192 | 32 |

| ROPs | 96 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 48 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 149.8 GPixel/s | 28.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 299.5 GTexel/s | 57.12 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 19.17 TFLOPS | 1.828 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.656 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 140 W | 75 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Height | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Width | Not specified | 18 mm (0.7 inches) |