GeForce GT 620 vs GTX 880M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 880M SLI with GeForce GT 620, including specs and performance data.
GTX 880M SLI outperforms GT 620 by a whopping 2110% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 250 | 1115 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N15E-GX-A2 | 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 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 3072 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 3540 Million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 206 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 11.20 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 0.2688 gflops |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| 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 | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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 HD | 75
+2400%
| 3−4
−2400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+2300%
|
3−4
−2300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+2117%
|
6−7
−2117%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+2500%
|
4−5
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+2433%
|
3−4
−2433%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+2300%
|
4−5
−2300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+2300%
|
3−4
−2300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+2117%
|
6−7
−2117%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+2500%
|
4−5
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+2433%
|
3−4
−2433%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+2300%
|
4−5
−2300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+2117%
|
6−7
−2117%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100−110
+2500%
|
4−5
−2500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+2333%
|
3−4
−2333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 95−100
+2300%
|
4−5
−2300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+2380%
|
5−6
−2380%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 120−130
+2440%
|
5−6
−2440%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 110−120
+2160%
|
5−6
−2160%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 880M SLI and GT 620 compete in popular games:
- GTX 880M SLI is 2400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.66 | 0.98 |
| Recency | 12 March 2014 | 15 May 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 206 Watt | 49 Watt |
GTX 880M SLI has a 2110.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 620, on the other hand, has 320.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 880M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 880M SLI 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.
