NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 and NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile occupy entirely different tiers of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The RTX A4000 Mobile wins both recorded head-to-head tests, but the GTX 1630 holds its own in terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs, sitting at the 70th percentile compared to the A4000 Mobile's 66th. That counterintuitive result stems from the fact that the database aggregates a wide range of workloads, and the GTX 1630's simpler architecture posts consistent results across its tests, while the A4000 Mobile's professional-grade feature set does not always translate to raw compute wins in every synthetic benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 Mobile is the clear winner in raw compute performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 97,178 against the GTX 1630's 24,858, a delta of 74.4% in favor of the mobile workstation part. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A4000 Mobile scores 73,002 against 23,695, a 67.5% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally higher performance class. The A4000 Mobile also brings 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s for the GTX 1630. For memory-bound workloads, the A4000 Mobile has four times the bandwidth, which shows up in its dominant OpenCL result.

The GTX 1630, however, wins in efficiency per watt in a narrow sense. Its TDP is 75 W, while the A4000 Mobile draws 115 W. The GTX 1630 also requires no power connector and can run off a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the A4000 Mobile's power connector field is listed as "None" but its suggested PSU is not specified in the database. The GTX 1630 is a single-slot, compact card at 145 mm length, 69 mm height, and 18 mm width, making it a fit for small form factor builds. The A4000 Mobile has no listed dimensions, as it is a mobile part whose physical size depends on the host laptop.

The GTX 1630 also holds an edge in its percentile ranking. At 70th percentile versus the A4000 Mobile's 66th, the desktop card places higher in the database's all-GPU distribution, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This suggests that the GTX 1630's average benchmark score of 24,277 is more representative of its class, while the A4000 Mobile's average of 21,379 is dragged down by its Passmark results, which include low DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores that are likely artifacts of the mobile platform or driver state during testing.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, while the A4000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process. The transistor counts tell the story: 4,700 million for the GTX 1630 versus 17,400 million for the A4000 Mobile. Die size also differs dramatically, 200 mm² for the GTX 1630 and 392 mm² for the A4000 Mobile, giving the A4000 Mobile a transistor density of 44.4M per mm² against 23.5M per mm² for the GTX 1630.

The A4000 Mobile is an Ampere-generation part with 5,120 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. It also includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores, features the GTX 1630 lacks entirely. The GTX 1630, a Turing-generation part, has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. The FP32 throughput is 17.20 TFLOPS for the A4000 Mobile versus 1.828 TFLOPS for the GTX 1630, a nearly 9.4x difference. FP16 performance is also vastly different: the A4000 Mobile hits 17.20 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the GTX 1630 manages 3.656 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture separates the two further. The GTX 1630 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6, while the A4000 Mobile uses a 256-bit bus with 8 GB. Pixel rate for the A4000 Mobile is 134.4 GPixel/s, texture rate is 268.8 GTexel/s; the GTX 1630 manages 28.56 GPixel/s and 57.12 GTexel/s respectively. The A4000 Mobile supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the GTX 1630 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. API support also differs: the A4000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), the GTX 1630 only DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests are both Geekbench workloads, and the A4000 Mobile wins both. In OpenCL, the A4000 Mobile scores 97,178 against the GTX 1630's 24,858, a delta of 74.4% in favor of the mobile workstation part. That result is consistent with the A4000 Mobile's much higher shading unit count, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. The OpenCL test is heavily compute-oriented, and the A4000 Mobile's 5,120 shading units simply overwhelm the GTX 1630's 512.

In Vulkan, the margin narrows but remains lopsided. The A4000 Mobile scores 73,002 against 23,695, a 67.5% advantage. Vulkan tests often scale with driver efficiency and memory bandwidth as much as raw shader count, and while the A4000 Mobile still wins by a wide margin, the relative gap is smaller than in OpenCL. The GTX 1630's 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth is a limiting factor in Vulkan workloads that stream data, and the A4000 Mobile's 384.0 GB/s provides four times the headroom.

The database also records Passmark results for the A4000 Mobile, though no comparable GTX 1630 Passmark scores are listed. The A4000 Mobile's Passmark G3D score is 14,796, its GPU compute score is 6,394, and its G2D score is 585. DirectX 9 through 12 scores range from 66 to 157, with DirectX 9 scoring highest at 157 and DirectX 12 scoring lowest at 66. These figures are not directly comparable to the GTX 1630, but they do show that the A4000 Mobile's performance varies significantly across API generations, likely due to driver maturity on the mobile platform.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1630 has an average benchmark score of 24,277, while the RTX A4000 Mobile averages 21,379. Despite losing both head-to-head tests, the GTX 1630 ranks higher in the database's average score distribution.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A4000 Mobile in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The A4000 Mobile scores 97,178 versus the GTX 1630's 24,858, a 74.4% advantage in favor of the A4000 Mobile.

Q: Does the GTX 1630 have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The GTX 1630 lists no RT cores or tensor cores. The RTX A4000 Mobile includes 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores.

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

A: The A4000 Mobile offers 384.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6, while the GTX 1630 offers 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking against all GPUs?

A: The GTX 1630 sits at the 70th percentile, while the RTX A4000 Mobile sits at the 66th percentile.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The A4000 Mobile delivers 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 1630 delivers 1.828 TFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile is the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads, memory-intensive tasks, and any application that can leverage its 40 RT cores, 160 tensor cores, and 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. Its 8 GB frame buffer and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large datasets, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support future-proofs it for newer graphics APIs. The GTX 1630, by contrast, is a compact, low-power desktop card with a 75 W TDP and no external power connector, but its 512 shading units and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth place it in a much lower performance tier.

Yet the percentile rankings complicate the picture. The GTX 1630's 70th percentile versus the A4000 Mobile's 66th suggests that, across the database's full range of GPUs, the GTX 1630's performance profile is more typical of a mid-tier part, while the A4000 Mobile's average is lowered by its weak Passmark results. For a user who prioritizes raw compute and memory throughput, the A4000 Mobile is the obvious pick. For a user who needs a simple, single-slot, low-power desktop GPU with no power connector requirements, the GTX 1630 fills that niche despite its far lower benchmark scores. The recorded data does not support treating these as competitors; they serve different platforms and different workloads, and the benchmarks reflect that divide.