Quadro K620M vs Quadro FX 3800M

Place in the ranking	976	771
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.05	7.02
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	G92	GM108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)	1 March 2015 (9 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	128	384
Core clock speed	675 MHz	1029 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1124 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.20	17.98
Floating-point processing power	0.4224 TFLOPS	0.8632 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	64	16

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 size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-A (3.0)
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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	14.4 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
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	+	+

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.

FX 3800M 1.50

Quadro K620M 3.02
+101%

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.

FX 3800M 580

Quadro K620M 1165
+101%

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.

FX 3800M 6779

Quadro K620M 7880
+16.2%

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

34
+61.9%

−61.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−50%

6−7
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Hitman 3	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −53.3%	21−24 +53.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Hitman 3	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −53.3%	21−24 +53.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Hitman 3	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −53.3%	21−24 +53.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −14.7%	35−40 +14.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−133%

7−8
+133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	2−3
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−50%

6−7
+50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−100%

2−3
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how FX 3800M and Quadro K620M compete in popular games:

FX 3800M is 62% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro K620M is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro K620M is ahead in 47 tests (80%)
there's a draw in 12 tests (20%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.50	3.02
Recency	14 August 2008	1 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	30 Watt

Quadro K620M has a 101.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K620M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.