GeForce GT 620 vs Quadro K5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5200 with GeForce GT 620, including specs and performance data.
K5200 outperforms GT 620 by a whopping 1451% 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 | 399 | 1185 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.96 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 7.60 | 1.50 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | GF108 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (12 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | $39.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro K5200 has 4700% better value for money than GT 620.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 2304 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.553 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 192 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.5 | + |
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.
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.73 | 0.95 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 15 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 49 Watt |
Quadro K5200 has a 1451% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GT 620, on the other hand, has 206% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K5200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 620 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
