GeForce GT 620 vs Radeon RX Vega M GH
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GH with GeForce GT 620, including specs and performance data.
M GH outperforms GT 620 by a whopping 1557% 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 | 379 | 1185 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 12.18 | 1.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $39.99 |
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 | 1536 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1063 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1190 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 114.2 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.656 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 96 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | HBM2 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 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 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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 | 59
+1867%
| 3−4
−1867%
|
| 1440p | 38
+1800%
| 2−3
−1800%
|
| 4K | 28
+2700%
| 1−2
−2700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 13.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 20.00 |
| 4K | no data | 39.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+1680%
|
5−6
−1680%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 81
+1925%
|
4−5
−1925%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+1680%
|
5−6
−1680%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1729%
|
7−8
−1729%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+1680%
|
5−6
−1680%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+1625%
|
12−14
−1625%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 108
+1700%
|
6−7
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1729%
|
7−8
−1729%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+1800%
|
5−6
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1729%
|
7−8
−1729%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+1571%
|
7−8
−1571%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1713%
|
8−9
−1713%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+1750%
|
8−9
−1750%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+1900%
|
4−5
−1900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 12−14 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega M GH and GT 620 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GH is 1867% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega M GH is 1800% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega M GH is 2700% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.74 | 0.95 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 15 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 49 Watt |
RX Vega M GH has a 1557% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
GT 620, on the other hand, has 104% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega M GH is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GH is a notebook 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.
