GeForce 9100M G vs Quadro K620M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K620M with GeForce 9100M G, including specs and performance data.
K620M outperforms 9100M G by a whopping 1315% 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 | 847 | 1471 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.30 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | no data |
| GPU code name | GM108 | MCP77MH MCP79MH |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2015 (11 years ago) | 3 June 2008 (18 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 | 384 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 data |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 10 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| 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.
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 | 22
+2100%
| 1−2
−2100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how Quadro K620M and 9100M G compete in popular games:
- Quadro K620M is 2100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro K620M is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro K620M performs better in 24 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.83 | 0.20 |
| Recency | 1 March 2015 | 3 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Quadro K620M has a 1315% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro K620M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9100M G in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K620M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce 9100M G 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.
