Quadro M620 vs GeForce GTX 960M
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 21% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 455 | 504 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 1.44 | 0.52 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | N16P-GX | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2015 (9 years ago) | 13 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Current price | $799 | $1958 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 960M has 177% better value for money than Quadro M620.
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 | 640 | 512 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 1018 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1202 MHz | 977 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 | 31.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 960M and Quadro M620 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| 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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 80 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 | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
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.
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 21% 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%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 21% 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%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 39% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 38% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 36% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 34% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 28% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 37% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 64% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 808% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 1535% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 103% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 1% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 354% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 30% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 2883% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 30% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.
SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 64% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.
SPECviewperf 12 - Catia
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 103% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.
SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 808% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.
SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 1535% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.
SPECviewperf 12 - Creo
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 1% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.
SPECviewperf 12 - Medical
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro M620 outperforms GeForce GTX 960M by 354% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.
SPECviewperf 12 - Energy
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms Quadro M620 by 2883% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.
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 | 95
+26.7%
| 75−80
−26.7%
|
| Full HD | 36
+38.5%
| 26
−38.5%
|
| 1440p | 15
+25%
| 12−14
−25%
|
| 4K | 13
+30%
| 10
−30%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+64.7%
|
16−18
−64.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+40%
|
24−27
−40%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+26.3%
|
19
−26.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 11
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+35.3%
|
16−18
−35.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 23
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+40%
|
10
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 11
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 15
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how GTX 960M and Quadro M620 compete in popular games:
- GTX 960M is 26.7% faster than Quadro M620 in 900p
- GTX 960M is 38.5% faster than Quadro M620 in 1080p
- GTX 960M is 25% faster than Quadro M620 in 1440p
- GTX 960M is 30% faster than Quadro M620 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 960M is 200% faster than the Quadro M620.
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M620 is 50% faster than the GTX 960M.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 960M is ahead in 62 tests (91%)
- Quadro M620 is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 8.78 | 7.25 |
| Recency | 12 March 2015 | 13 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M620 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M620 is a mobile workstation 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.
