GeForce GT 620M vs Quadro 410
Aggregated performance score
Quadro 410 outperforms GeForce GT 620M by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1034 | 1037 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | N13P-GLP / N13M-GS |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 August 2012 (11 years ago) | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
| Current price | $41 (0.3x MSRP) | $300 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro 410 has 75% better value for money than GT 620M.
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 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | Up to 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 715 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.30 | Up to 10.0 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 271.1 gflops | 253.4 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Quadro 410 and GeForce GT 620M 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 176 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| Memory type | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | Up to 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1782 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.26 GB/s | Up to 28.8 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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.0 | + |
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.
Quadro 410 outperforms GeForce GT 620M by 1% 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%
Quadro 410 outperforms GeForce GT 620M by 1% in Passmark.
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 GT 620M outperforms Quadro 410 by 45% 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:
| Full HD | 35−40
−2.9%
| 36
+2.9%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.14 | 1.13 |
| Recency | 7 August 2012 | 22 March 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 15 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro 410 and GeForce GT 620M.
Be aware that Quadro 410 is a workstation card while GeForce GT 620M is a notebook 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.
