Radeon 620 vs Quadro K4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4000M with Radeon 620, including specs and performance data.
K4000M outperforms 620 by a whopping 122% 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 | 693 | 923 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.87 | 3.48 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (14 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (7 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 | 960 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 601 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.08 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.154 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 14.4 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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 Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 47
+124%
| 21−24
−124%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+45.2%
|
40−45
−45.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+91.1%
|
45−50
−91.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+45.2%
|
40−45
−45.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+45.2%
|
40−45
−45.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
+173%
|
10−12
−173%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+63.6%
|
21−24
−63.6%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+155%
|
20−22
−155%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how K4000M and Radeon 620 compete in popular games:
- K4000M is 124% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K4000M is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, K4000M surpassed Radeon 620 in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.00 | 2.25 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 50 Watt |
K4000M has a 122% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Radeon 620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon 620 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
