RTX A400 vs GeForce GT 620M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 620M with RTX A400, including specs and performance data.

GT 620M
2012
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.03

RTX A400 outperforms 620M by a whopping 1288% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1143396
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.2721.97
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGF108GA107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date23 August 2012 (13 years ago)16 April 2024 (1 year ago)

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 cores96768
Core clock speedUp to 625 MHz727 MHz
Boost clock speed715 MHz1762 MHz
Number of transistors585 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate10.5642.29
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS2.706 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs1624
Tensor Coresno data24
Ray Tracing Coresno data6
L1 Cache128 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data163 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 128bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 28.8 GB/s96 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 API12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+8.6
DLSS-+

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.

GT 620M 1.03
RTX A400 14.30
+1288%

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.

GT 620M 431
Samples: 690
RTX A400 5982
+1288%
Samples: 338

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.

GT 620M 2150
RTX A400 23123
+975%

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 HD36
−1150%
450−500
+1150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Fortnite 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−1257%
95−100
+1257%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1233%
120−130
+1233%
Valorant 30−35
−1150%
400−450
+1150%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−1100%
300−310
+1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Dota 2 14−16
−1233%
200−210
+1233%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Fortnite 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−1257%
95−100
+1257%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1233%
120−130
+1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Valorant 30−35
−1150%
400−450
+1150%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Dota 2 14−16
−1233%
200−210
+1233%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−1257%
95−100
+1257%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1233%
120−130
+1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
Valorant 30−35
−1150%
400−450
+1150%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
−1233%
80−85
+1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−1264%
150−160
+1264%
Valorant 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−1257%
190−200
+1257%
Valorant 5−6
−1200%
65−70
+1200%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

This is how GT 620M and RTX A400 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A400 is 1150% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.03 14.30
Recency 23 August 2012 16 April 2024
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 50 Watt

GT 620M has 233.3% lower power consumption.

RTX A400, on the other hand, has a 1288.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 620M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 620M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A400 is a workstation one.

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 GeForce GT 620M
GeForce GT 620M
NVIDIA RTX A400
RTX A400

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.


3.3 487 votes

Rate GeForce GT 620M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 46 votes

Rate RTX A400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 620M or RTX A400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.