HD Graphics 620 vs Quadro M6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M6000 with HD Graphics 620, including specs and performance data.
M6000 outperforms HD Graphics 620 by a whopping 1151% 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 | 239 | 930 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.38 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.70 | 11.60 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | Kaby Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 March 2015 (11 years ago) | 30 August 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 3072 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.844 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 3 |
| TMUs | 192 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 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 | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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 | 170−180
+1114%
| 14 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 24.71 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3 | 2−3 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Fortnite | 12 | 12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11 | 11 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9 | 9 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 40−45 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 43 | 43 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Dota 2 | 24 | 24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3 | 3 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5 | 5 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 40−45 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Dota 2 | 24 | 24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 40−45 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 10−12 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Valorant | 20−22 | 20−22 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 3−4 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 4−5 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Valorant | 10−12 | 10−12 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 3−4 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 3−4 |
This is how Quadro M6000 and HD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:
- Quadro M6000 is 1114% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.89 | 2.23 |
| Recency | 21 March 2015 | 30 August 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro M6000 has a 1151% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics 620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 94% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M6000 is a workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 620 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
