Quadro P620 vs Quadro FX 380M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 380M with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.
P620 outperforms 380M by a whopping 2952% 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 | 1392 | 524 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.89 | 16.99 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (7 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 | 16 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 1177 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1443 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | 46.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04698 TFLOPS | 1.478 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.64 GB/s | 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−4600%
| 47
+4600%
|
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 | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−252%
|
85−90
+252%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−962%
|
130−140
+962%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−900%
|
90
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−540%
|
32
+540%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−252%
|
85−90
+252%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−822%
|
83
+822%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−240%
|
17
+240%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−252%
|
85−90
+252%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1467%
|
45−50
+1467%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| 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%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| 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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how FX 380M and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P620 is 4600% 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 27 tests (42%)
- there's a draw in 37 tests (58%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 8.85 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 1 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 40 Watt |
FX 380M has 60% lower power consumption.
Quadro P620, on the other hand, has a 2951.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 380M is a mobile workstation 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.
