Quadro P620 vs GeForce GT 625M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 625M with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.
P620 outperforms 625M by a whopping 670% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1123 | 538 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.98 | 17.27 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 625 MHz | 1177 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1443 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 46.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | 1.478 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 14.4 GB/s | 96.13 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 6−7
−683%
| 47
+683%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3667%
|
113
+3667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−156%
|
85−90
+156%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−393%
|
130−140
+393%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−463%
|
90
+463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−357%
|
32
+357%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−156%
|
85−90
+156%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−419%
|
83
+419%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−143%
|
17
+143%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−156%
|
85−90
+156%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−867%
|
29
+867%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−886%
|
65−70
+886%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−292%
|
45−50
+292%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−1171%
|
85−90
+1171%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how GT 625M and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P620 is 683% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P620 is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P620 performs better in 44 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.16 | 8.93 |
| Recency | 1 October 2012 | 1 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 40 Watt |
GT 625M has 167% lower power consumption.
Quadro P620, on the other hand, has a 670% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 625M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 625M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
