Quadro M620 vs FX 3800
Aggregated performance score
M620 outperforms FX 3800 by 253% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 831 | 503 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.21 | 0.52 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | GM107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 30 March 2009 (15 years old) | 13 January 2017 (7 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
| Current price | $171 (0.2x MSRP) | $1958 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M620 has 148% better value for money than FX 3800.
Technical specs
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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1018 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 977 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 31.26 |
| Floating-point performance | 462.3 gflops | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro FX 3800 and Quadro M620 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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 198 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
Memory
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 1.3 | 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.
M620 outperforms FX 3800 by 253% 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%
M620 outperforms FX 3800 by 253% in Passmark.
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 | 7−8
−271%
| 26
+271%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−400%
| 10
+400%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.06 | 7.27 |
| Recency | 30 March 2009 | 13 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 30 Watt |
The Quadro M620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
