HD Graphics 620 vs GRID K520

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID K520 with HD Graphics 620, including specs and performance data.

GRID K520
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
9.12
+277%

GRID K520 outperforms HD Graphics 620 by a whopping 277% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking478839
Place by popularitynot in top-10063
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.34no data
Power efficiency2.8311.25
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGK104Kaby Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,599 no data

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 cores1536192
Core clock speed745 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate95.3624.00
Floating-point processing power2.289 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs323
TMUs12824

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount4 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.126+
CUDA3.0-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GRID K520 9.12
+277%
HD Graphics 620 2.42

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.

GRID K520 3516
+276%
HD Graphics 620 935

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 HD45−50
+246%
13
−246%

Cost per frame, $

1080p79.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+0%
25
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+0%
14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GRID K520 and HD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:

  • GRID K520 is 246% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.12 2.42
Recency 23 July 2013 30 August 2016
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 15 Watt

GRID K520 has a 276.9% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1400% lower power consumption.

The GRID K520 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 620 in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID K520 is a workstation card while HD Graphics 620 is a notebook 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.


NVIDIA GRID K520
GRID K520
Intel HD Graphics 620
HD Graphics 620

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.3 3 votes

Rate GRID K520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 2654 votes

Rate HD Graphics 620 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.