UHD Graphics 620 vs GeForce GTX 280M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI and UHD Graphics 620, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
280M SLI outperforms Graphics 620 by a substantial 30% 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 | 807 | 892 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 43 |
| Power efficiency | 1.66 | 12.74 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | Kaby Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 1 September 2017 (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 | 256 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 3 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | Ring Bus |
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 | GDDR3 | LPDDR3/DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 16−18
+23.1%
| 13
−23.1%
|
| 1440p | 18−21
+12.5%
| 16
−12.5%
|
| 4K | 10−12
+25%
| 8
−25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
17
+41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
17
+41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7
−28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−22.2%
|
22
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12
−33.3%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+20%
|
40
−20%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+300%
|
3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+62.2%
|
37
−62.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+55%
|
20
−55%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+125%
|
8
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+80%
|
5
−80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4
−50%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+41.2%
|
34
−41.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18
−72.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+267%
|
3
−267%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+14.3%
|
40−45
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+21.7%
|
21−24
−21.7%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+31.8%
|
22
−31.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 280M SLI and UHD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:
- GTX 280M SLI is 23% faster in 1080p
- GTX 280M SLI is 13% faster in 1440p
- GTX 280M SLI is 25% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 280M SLI is 300% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the UHD Graphics 620 is 42% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 280M SLI performs better in 49 tests (91%)
- UHD Graphics 620 performs better in 3 tests (6%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.21 | 2.47 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 1 September 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 15 Watt |
GTX 280M SLI has a 30% higher aggregate performance score.
UHD Graphics 620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 293% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 280M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 620 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
