UHD Graphics 620 vs Quadro 3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 3000M with UHD Graphics 620, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 3000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.58

UHD Graphics 620 outperforms 3000M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking821810
Place by popularitynot in top-10027
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.24no data
Power efficiency2.3612.20
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGF104Kaby Lake GT2
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)1 September 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$398.96 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores240192
Core clock speed450 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate18.0024.00
Floating-point processing power0.432 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs323
TMUs4024

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)Ring Bus

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 typeGDDR5LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount2 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.1-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

Quadro 3000M 2.58
UHD Graphics 620 2.67
+3.5%

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.

Quadro 3000M 995
UHD Graphics 620 1030
+3.5%

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.

Quadro 3000M 1539
UHD Graphics 620 1744
+13.3%

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.

Quadro 3000M 7941
+8.3%
UHD Graphics 620 7330

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 HD51
+292%
13
−292%
1440p14−16
−7.1%
15
+7.1%
4K6−7
−16.7%
7
+16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.82no data
1440p28.50no data
4K66.49no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6
+20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4
−167%
8
+167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−42.9%
10
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−192%
38
+192%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−100%
40
+100%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−50%
9
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−36.4%
15
+36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+26.7%
30
−26.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−177%
36
+177%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−70%
34
+70%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−7.7%
14
+7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−27.3%
14
+27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+333%
3
−333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how Quadro 3000M and UHD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 3000M is 292% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics 620 is 7% faster in 1440p
  • UHD Graphics 620 is 17% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 333% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 620 is 192% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro 3000M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
  • UHD Graphics 620 is ahead in 17 tests (30%)
  • there's a draw in 37 tests (65%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.58 2.67
Recency 22 February 2011 1 September 2017
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

UHD Graphics 620 has a 3.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro 3000M and UHD Graphics 620.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics 620 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.

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 Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M
Intel UHD Graphics 620
UHD Graphics 620

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 49 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4470 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.