GeForce GT 620 vs 840M
Aggregate performance score
840M outperforms GT 620 by a whopping 187% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 758 | 1076 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N15S-GT | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $39.99 |
| Current price | $743 | $125 (3.1x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce 840M has 1300% better value for money than GT 620.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | 11.2 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 268.8 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 840M and GeForce GT 620 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-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 | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 14.4 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 Connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| 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 | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
840M outperforms GT 620 by 187% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
840M outperforms GT 620 by 189% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
840M outperforms GT 620 by 266% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
840M outperforms GT 620 by 200% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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:
| 900p | 45
+221%
| 14−16
−221%
|
| Full HD | 17
+240%
| 5−6
−240%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
This is how GeForce 840M and GT 620 compete in popular games:
- GeForce 840M is 221% faster in 900p
- GeForce 840M is 240% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.81 | 0.98 |
| Recency | 12 March 2014 | 15 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 49 Watt |
The GeForce 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 840M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 620 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
