The GTX 1630 really only makes sense at 1080p low to medium settings, maybe high settings in lighter games. You can see by the overall average of just 36.5 fps that it's not going to win any performance awards.
But it does manage to beat the GTX 1050, which launched with a price of $110 back in 2016, and of course the GT 1030. It also beats the RX 560 4GB, and by extension the RX 550 4GB. Again, those were generally sub-$100 cards when they launched. On the other hand, it fails to beat the GTX 1050 Ti, a $140 card from 2016 with similar video encoding hardware.
In the individual games, nearly all of the games we tested at 1080p medium remained playable, breaking 30 fps. Flight Simulator came up just a hair short at 28 fps, but it's still playable at that speed, while Total War: Warhammer 3 fell far short of the 30 fps mark and averaged just 21 fps.
As you can guess from the 1080p medium results, bumping the quality up to 1080p ultra generally exceeds the capabilities of the GTX 1630. Average performance across the eight tested games was just 18 fps, and there wasn't a single game that broke the 30 fps mark.
Some of that might be due to only having 4GB VRAM, but the 64-bit memory interface and lack of bandwidth are also a problem. The GTX 1650 and 1650 Super also have 4GB VRAM, but they delivered mostly playable 1080p ultra results, outside of a few games.
But we're not suggesting anyone buy a 4GB card with the intent of playing games at ultra quality settings. More and more titles are pushing beyond 4GB, even at 1080p, and the days of such GPUs are limited., which is the big problem with the GTX 1630, as it's already near the bottom of the performance ladder and clearly doesn't have any legs left.