Quadro P620 vs HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.
P620 outperforms HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) by a whopping 2582% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1368 | 530 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.04 |
| Architecture | Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 May 2011 (15 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (8 years 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 cores | 6 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 1177 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1443 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 46.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.478 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96.13 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 7
−571%
| 47
+571%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−238%
|
85−90
+238%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10
−1280%
|
130−140
+1280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−800%
|
90
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−540%
|
32
+540%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−238%
|
85−90
+238%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−730%
|
83
+730%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−240%
|
17
+240%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−238%
|
85−90
+238%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1075%
|
45−50
+1075%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2250%
|
45−50
+2250%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P620 is 571% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P620 is 2250% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P620 performs better in 26 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.33 | 8.85 |
| Recency | 1 May 2011 | 1 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
Quadro P620 has a 2582% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 129% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
