Quadro K620 vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with Quadro K620, including specs and performance data.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU
2020
13.71
+137%

Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms K620 by a whopping 137% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking378598
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.71
Power efficiencyno data8.88
Architectureno dataMaxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameno dataGM107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date10 November 2020 (4 years ago)22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$189.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores8384
Core clock speed1278 MHz1058 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1124 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data41 Watt
Texture fill rateno data26.98
Floating-point processing powerno data0.8632 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data24

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno data128 Bit
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno dataUp to 29 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Desktop Managementno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXno data12
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-5.0

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 HD27
+170%
10−12
−170%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data18.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Elden Ring 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+150%
18−20
−150%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+162%
21−24
−162%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+164%
14−16
−164%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+143%
14−16
−143%
Valorant 50−55
+157%
21−24
−157%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+150%
18−20
−150%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Dota 2 45−50
+172%
18−20
−172%
Elden Ring 40−45
+156%
16−18
−156%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+148%
21−24
−148%
Fortnite 75−80
+157%
30−33
−157%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+162%
21−24
−162%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+172%
18−20
−172%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+164%
14−16
−164%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−105
+150%
40−45
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+143%
14−16
−143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+163%
16−18
−163%
Valorant 50−55
+157%
21−24
−157%
World of Tanks 180−190
+143%
75−80
−143%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+150%
18−20
−150%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Dota 2 45−50
+172%
18−20
−172%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+148%
21−24
−148%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+162%
21−24
−162%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−105
+150%
40−45
−150%
Valorant 50−55
+157%
21−24
−157%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Elden Ring 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+142%
45−50
−142%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
World of Tanks 95−100
+143%
40−45
−143%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+167%
12−14
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+175%
12−14
−175%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Valorant 30−35
+143%
14−16
−143%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Dota 2 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Elden Ring 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+150%
16−18
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Dota 2 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Fortnite 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Valorant 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%

This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and Quadro K620 compete in popular games:

  • Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 170% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.71 5.79
Recency 10 November 2020 22 July 2014
Chip lithography 5 nm 28 nm

Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 136.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook card while Quadro K620 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Apple M1 8-Core GPU
M1 8-Core GPU
NVIDIA Quadro K620
Quadro K620

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 923 votes

Rate M1 8-Core GPU on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 642 votes

Rate Quadro K620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.