Skip to main content

GeForce GTX 1630 Specs Leaked: 512 CUDA Cores, 4GB GDDR6

Turing
Turing (Image credit: Nvidia)

Nvidia's Turing microarchitecture is a little long in the tooth. Still, the chipmaker isn't ready to leave Turing behind. According to VideoCardz (opens in new tab), Nvidia will reportedly give Turing the last ride in the shape of the GeForce GTX 1630, rumored to launch on May 31.

The GeForce GTX 1630 would mark the first time that Nvidia has relinquished the GTX branding to a lower-tier SKU. The x30-series, such as the GT 730 or GT 1030 models, have typically assumed the GT moniker. The model name alone is enough to tell you that the GeForce GTX 1630 is an entry-level graphics card that slots right below the GeForce GTX 1650, the previous rock-bottom GTX offering. The new Turing graphics card will share the battlefield with AMD's Navi 24-powered models, such as the Radeon RX 6500 XT and Radeon RX 6400.

The leaked specifications, which you should approach with caution, claim that the GeForce GTX 1630 will wield Nvidia's TU117 silicon, which sounds plausible. The TU117 is the smallest Turing die, and Nvidia has used variants for its other SKUs, such as the GeForce GTX 1650 or GeForce MX550. Nvidia will play surgeon with the TU117 die inside the GeForce GTX 1630 to avoid cannibalization within its ranks.

The TU117 has 16 streaming multiprocessors (SMs), equivalent to 1,024 CUDA cores. The GeForce GTX 1650 has 14 enabled SMs (896 CUDA cores), meaning the GeForce GTX 1630 will have far less. VideoCardz believes that the GeForce GTX 1630 only comes with 8 SMs or 512 CUDA cores. That's precisely half of what TU117 offers and 43% less than what the GeForce GTX 1650 has onboard.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1630 Specifications

Radeon RX 6400GeForce GTX 1650GeForce GTX 1630*
ArchitectureNavi 24TU117TU117
Process TechnologyTSMC N6TSMC 12FFNTSMC 12FFN
Transistors (Billion)5.44.74.7
Die size (mm^2)107200200
SMs / CUs16168
GPU Cores768896512
Base Clock (MHz)1,9231,485?
Boost Clock (MHz)2,3211,6651,800
VRAM Speed (Gbps)16812
VRAM (GB)444
VRAM Bus Width6412864
ROPs3232?
TMUs485632
TFLOPS FP32 (Boost)3.52.91.8
Bandwidth (GBps)12812896
TDP (watts)537575
Launch DateJan 2022Apr 2019May 2022
Official MSRP$159$149<$149

*Specifications are unconfirmed.

The GeForce GTX 1630 could sport a 1,800 MHz boost clock speed, but it's unknown whether the quoted value is the reference specification or an aftermarket model with a factory overclock. Single-precision numbers aren't the best metric to measure gaming performance. For comparison sake, the GeForce GTX 1650 delivers up to 61% higher FP32 performance than the GeForce GTX 1630, whereas the Radeon RX 6400 takes the margin up to 94%. Early reviews showed the Radeon RX 6400 on par with the GeForce GTX 1650 in terms of performance, so the GeForce GTX 1630 is likely slower than the Navi 24 graphics card. The question is just how much slower.

It's comforting to know that the GeForce GTX 1630 will reportedly wield 4GB of 12 Gbps GDDR6 memory. The sad part is that Nvidia will likely restrict it to a 64-bit memory interface. Therefore, the GeForce GTX 1630 can only offer memory bandwidth of up to 96 GBps, 25% lower than the GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6400. The original GeForce GTX 1650 debuted with 8 Gbps GDDR5 memory, but Nvidia subsequently released three new variants with 12 Gbps GDDR6, bumping the memory bandwidth from 128 GBps to 192 GBps. So if we compare the GeForce GTX 1630 to the GDDR6 alternatives, we're looking at 50% less memory bandwidth.

Despite having fewer CUDA cores, the GeForce GTX 1630 may retain the same 75W TDP as the faster GeForce GTX 1650. The extra headroom is probably why the GeForce GTX 1630 could feature higher boost clock speeds. However, the GeForce GTX 1650 looks demanding besides the Radeon RX 6400's 53W rating.

The GeForce GTX 1630's exact MSRP is still up in the air, but the Turing-based graphics card will likely have a sub-$150 price tag. The GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6400 have a $148 and $159 MSRP, respectively, so the GeForce GTX 1630 will have to go very low to compete. However, we would love to see the GeForce GTX 1630 retail between $100 to $120 since we haven't seen a GeForce GTX graphics card in that price range since Pascal (GeForce GTX 1050 and GTX 1050 Ti).

Zhiye Liu
Zhiye Liu

Zhiye Liu is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • King_V
    Kind of confusing, and the specs suggest that the 1630 will underperform the 6400. I think? If the 6400 is in the ballpark of the 1650, it seems like this very cut down version will be notably below that.

    Side note: Now that I'm reminded of the multiple GTX 1650 GDDR6 variants - was it ever determined if the TU106, TU116, and TU117 versions of the 1650 GDDR6 all performed the same? Or did any variant have a particular advantage?
    Reply
  • thisisaname
    Looks to me it is not competing with the AMD it is to replace the 1030.
    Reply
  • Mario.chamdjoko
    but I'm still more interested in buying RX6400, because of the price, some specs and low power
    Reply
  • Eximo
    Lower core count than a GTX1050 or even an MX350, so, yeah, not going to be that fast, but probably a little faster than the GT1030 GDDR5.

    I was curious myself how the various 1650 compare. GDDR6 models have faster memory but lower clock speeds than the GDDR5 version.
    Reply
  • PiranhaTech
    thisisaname said:
    Looks to me it is not competing with the AMD it is to replace the 1030.
    This is what I'm thinking as well. The GT1030 is more of a utility card for me, when I just need a basic card that can drive 1080p60 or above. Sometimes it's the case where I'm having issues with the Intel drivers (note: haven't used Intel integrated for a while so this may have changed)
    Reply
  • Eximo
    Intel drivers still have random issues. My new Dell laptop has Iris Xe graphics, and luckily, an MX350. When I first got it the screen would go black when advertisements on websites loaded. Particularly embedded video players. I tried getting the latest Intel drivers, that did not help. Turned off hardware acceleration, that worked, but then websites were very slow. So I had to turn acceleration back on and tell all my browsers to use the Nvidia card, no issues since.

    If the reviews of the new Xe graphics cards are anything to go by, Intel drivers are horrendous. A lot of game titles just won't launch or they have terrible render issues and glitches. I hope they can figure it out though. I am mildly interested in their lowest end card to replace my GT1030 so I can have an HDMI 2.1 port without getting an RTX card or an RX 6400.
    Reply
  • Co BIY
    I think the key question for this class of card is: How much of an improvement is it over integrated graphics?
    Reply
  • hushnecampus
    Co BIY said:
    I think the key question for this class of card is: How much of an improvement is it over integrated graphics?
    That’s what I was thinking. Would you want one of these and presumably a cheap CPU, rather than an APU?
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    The GeForce GTX 1630's exact MSRP is still up in the air, but the Turing-based graphics card will likely have a sub-$150 price tag. The GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6400 have a $148 and $159 MSRP, respectively, so the GeForce GTX 1630 will have to go very low to compete. However, we would love to see the GeForce GTX 1630 retail between $100 to $120 since we haven't seen a GeForce GTX graphics card in that price range since Pascal (GeForce GTX 1050 and GTX 1050 Ti).
    I would hope the price would be well below $150. In fact, it arguably should be under $100, considering it appears to offer somewhere around GTX 1050-level performance, a card that launched with a $109 starting MSRP well over five years ago. The fact they are moving it to "GTX" branding tells me they might intend to position it over $100 though, despite it likely not offering much over a 5+ year old card at that price point, aside from the additional VRAM.

    thisisaname said:
    Looks to me it is not competing with the AMD it is to replace the 1030.
    If it has a 75 watt TDP, it may be a bit pickier about the low-wattage power supplies found in some prebuilt systems compared to the 20-30 watt GT 1030, and cooling might also be more of a concern under load.
    Reply
  • Rdslw
    That's just the cheapest possible card. A lot of times that was still 730 as 1030 was not priced right lately. If they have spare cores, and I assume they got enough partially damaged 1650's to make them into 1630's.
    1030 was also last card to be featured in the upgradable laptop format size. I wonder if 1630 will be as well. We would be able to make interesting frankenstein laptops....
    Reply