NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 both use the Turing architecture, but they occupy opposite ends of the market. The Quadro RTX 8000 is a professional workstation card with 48 GB of memory and 4,608 shading units, while the GTX 1630 is a low-power entry-level desktop card with 512 shading units and 4 GB of memory. The database records show an average benchmark score of 28,421 for the Quadro RTX 8000 against 24,277 for the GTX 1630, a gap of roughly 17%. However, the percentile rankings tell a different story: the Quadro RTX 8000 sits at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1630 sits at the 70th percentile, meaning both cards outperform a majority of the database’s tracked hardware, albeit through very different means.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 8000 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database. It takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 101,883 against 24,858 for the GTX 1630, a margin of 309.9%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 122,637 against 23,695, a margin of 417.6%. These are compute-focused tests that stress raw shading throughput, memory bandwidth, and parallel execution resources, all areas where the RTX 8000’s larger chip and 48 GB frame buffer dominate. The GTX 1630 has no recorded wins in any head-to-head test; the win count stands at 2 for the Quadro RTX 8000 and 0 for the GTX 1630.

Where the GTX 1630 makes its case is in efficiency and physical footprint, not in raw score. It carries a 75 W TDP against 260 W for the Quadro RTX 8000, and it is a single-slot card with no external power connectors, whereas the RTX 8000 is a dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The GTX 1630 also has a much lower suggested power supply rating of 250 W versus 600 W. For a workstation or small-form-factor build that cannot accommodate a large dual-slot card or a high-wattage PSU, the GTX 1630 is the only one of the two that fits the physical and electrical constraints. But in every measurable performance category in the database, the Quadro RTX 8000 is ahead by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Turing architecture using TSMC’s 12 nm process, but the silicon implementations are drastically different. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip, a large die measuring 754 mm² with 18,600 million transistors, for a transistor density of 24.7 million per mm². The GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip, a much smaller die at 200 mm² with 4,700 million transistors, for a density of 23.5 million per mm². The RTX 8000’s die is nearly four times larger, which explains its much higher shading unit count: 4,608 versus 512.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s. That is a 7x difference in bandwidth and a 12x difference in capacity. The RTX 8000 also includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, hardware that the GTX 1630 lacks entirely; the GTX 1630’s RT and tensor core fields are null in the database. This makes the RTX 8000 capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference workloads, while the GTX 1630 is limited to traditional rasterization and compute.

Clock speeds are closer than the other specs suggest. The RTX 8000 runs at a base of 1395 MHz and a boost of 1770 MHz, while the GTX 1630 runs at 1740 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost. The GTX 1630 actually boosts higher, but with only 512 shading units its peak FP32 throughput is 1.828 TFLOPS against 16.31 TFLOPS for the RTX 8000. The RTX 8000 also has 288 texture mapping units and 96 ROPs, versus 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the GTX 1630. Pixel fill rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 28.56 GPixel/s, and texture fill rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 57.12 GTexel/s.

API support differs as well. The RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1630 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs also differ: the RTX 8000 provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs plus a USB Type-C port, while the GTX 1630 provides one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The RTX 8000’s memory bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s for the GTX 1630.

Q: Does the GTX 1630 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 1630 has no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database record. The Quadro RTX 8000 includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, which enables hardware ray tracing and tensor-accelerated workloads.

Q: What is the performance gap in compute benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 against 24,858 for the GTX 1630, a 309.9% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 8000 scores 122,637 against 23,695, a 417.6% lead.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The GTX 1630 has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP, requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Quadro RTX 8000 was released on 2018-08-12, and the GTX 1630 was released on 2022-06-27.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has an average benchmark score of 28,421, while the GTX 1630 has an average of 24,277. This puts the RTX 8000 at the 74th percentile of all GPUs and the GTX 1630 at the 70th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification field. The RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, while the GTX 1630 uses the TU117 chip with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Shading units are 4,608 versus 512, TMUs are 288 versus 32, and ROPs are 96 versus 16. The RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores; the GTX 1630 has none. Memory capacity is 48 GB versus 4 GB, bus width is 384-bit versus 64-bit, and bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Clock speeds are the one area where the GTX 1630 leads. Its base clock is 1740 MHz against 1395 MHz, and its boost clock is 1785 MHz against 1770 MHz. The memory clock also differs: 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective for the RTX 8000, versus 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective for the GTX 1630. Pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 28.56 GPixel/s, texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 57.12 GTexel/s, FP32 throughput is 16.31 TFLOPS versus 1.828 TFLOPS, and FP16 throughput is 32.62 TFLOPS versus 3.656 TFLOPS.

Physical specifications diverge as well. The RTX 8000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, dual-slot, with a 260 W TDP and a 6-pin plus 8-pin power requirement. The GTX 1630 is 145 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 18 mm wide, single-slot, with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 600 W for the RTX 8000 and 250 W for the GTX 1630. The RTX 8000 has a launch MSRP of 9,999 USD; the GTX 1630 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the Quadro RTX 8000 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 8000 posts 101,883 points against 24,858 for the GTX 1630. The delta is 309.9%, meaning the RTX 8000 is roughly four times faster in this test. This is the smaller of the two margins, but it still represents a total performance tier gap. The GTX 1630’s score of 24,858 is close to its own average benchmark score of 24,277, indicating that the OpenCL result is representative of its overall compute capability.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The RTX 8000 scores 122,637 against 23,695 for the GTX 1630, a delta of 417.6%. The Vulkan test appears to favor the RTX 8000’s larger pool of shading units and higher bandwidth even more than OpenCL does. The GTX 1630’s Vulkan score of 23,695 is slightly below its average of 24,277, while the RTX 8000’s Vulkan score of 122,637 is far above its own average of 28,421. This suggests that the RTX 8000 has a particularly strong Vulkan driver path or that the test itself scales with the card’s massive parallel resources.

The nearest rival data places these results in context. The RTX 8000’s average score of 28,421 puts it within 1.4% of the GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020), 1.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro S7150 (28,117), and 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28,580). The GTX 1630’s average of 24,277 puts it within 0.2% of the GTX 780 Ti (24,236), 0.4% ahead of the RTX 2080 SUPER (24,170), and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (24,442). Neither card is an outlier relative to its nearest rivals; both sit in the middle of their respective performance clusters.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The Quadro RTX 8000 is the choice for any workload that prioritizes raw compute, large memory capacity, or hardware ray tracing and tensor acceleration. Its 48 GB frame buffer, 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 72 RT cores make it suitable for professional rendering, scientific compute, and AI inference. Its 309.9% lead in OpenCL and 417.6% lead in Vulkan over the GTX 1630 are not incremental improvements; they are categorical differences in throughput. The 74th percentile ranking also places it above the GTX 1630’s 70th percentile in the overall GPU distribution.

The GTX 1630 is the choice for constrained environments. Its 75 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors allow it to operate in systems where the RTX 8000’s 260 W TDP, dual-slot footprint, and 600 W suggested PSU would be impossible to accommodate. Its higher base clock of 1740 MHz and boost clock of 1785 MHz do not compensate for the 9x difference in shading units, but they do keep its peak performance respectable for its class. The GTX 1630’s nearest rivals include the RTX 2080 SUPER, which it slightly outperforms in average score, demonstrating that the 12 nm Turing design still holds up in its segment.

For users who can supply the power and space, the Quadro RTX 8000 is objectively the stronger card in every recorded benchmark. For users who need a low-power, low-profile card for basic display output or light compute, the GTX 1630 is the only one of the two that fits those physical and electrical limits. The database’s measurements do not show any scenario where the GTX 1630 outperforms the RTX 8000; the win count is 2 to 0. The decision comes down to whether the workload justifies the RTX 8000’s power and size requirements, not whether the GTX 1630 can match its performance, because it cannot.