Quadro P620 vs GeForce GTX 460M

Place in performance ranking	709	440
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.34	20.72
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	N11E-GS	GP107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	3 September 2010 (13 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Current price	$88	$170

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P620 has 5994% better value for money than GTX 460M.

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	192	512
Core clock speed	675 MHz	1177 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1442 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.1 billion/sec	43.33
Floating-point performance	518.4 gflops	1,490 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 460M and Quadro P620 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	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	60.0 GB/s	80.13 GB/s
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 Connectors

No outputs

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API with Feature Level 12.1	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	6.1

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.

GTX 460M 3.22

Quadro P620 9.39
+192%

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 460M by 192% based on our aggregate 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%

GTX 460M 1246

Quadro P620 3630
+191%

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 460M by 191% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 460M 1623

Quadro P620 5909
+264%

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 460M by 264% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 460M 7507

Quadro P620 25105
+234%

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 460M by 234% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 460M 1370

Quadro P620 4673
+241%

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 460M by 241% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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%

GTX 460M 4098

Quadro P620 11818
+188%

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 460M by 188% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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	30 −183%	85−90 +183%
Full HD	37 −40.5%	52 +40.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

−150%

14−16
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −280%	18−20 +280%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	14−16
Battlefield 5	6−7 −383%	27−30 +383%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −133%	27−30 +133%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −333%	24−27 +333%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −175%	30−35 +175%
Hitman 3	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −88.2%	30−35 +88.2%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −775%	35 +775%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −225%	24−27 +225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −108%	27−30 +108%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −280%	18−20 +280%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	14−16
Battlefield 5	6−7 −383%	27−30 +383%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −433%	64 +433%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −333%	24−27 +333%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −175%	30−35 +175%
Hitman 3	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −88.2%	30−35 +88.2%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −575%	27−30 +575%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −225%	24−27 +225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +117%	6 −117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −357%	32 +357%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −280%	18−20 +280%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	14−16
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −186%	20−22 +186%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −133%	27−30 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −175%	30−35 +175%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 −88.2%	30−35 +88.2%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −575%	27−30 +575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −143%	17 +143%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−225%

24−27
+225%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −275%	14−16 +275%
Hitman 3	0−1	12−14
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −200%	14−16 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −240%	16−18 +240%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −150%	20−22 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	10−11 −120%	21−24 +120%
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	8−9
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	5−6

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−125%

9−10
+125%

This is how GTX 460M and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

Quadro P620 is 183% faster in 900p
Quadro P620 is 41% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 460M is 117% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P620 is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 460M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Quadro P620 is ahead in 58 tests (98%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.22	9.39
Recency	3 September 2010	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	25 Watt