UHD Graphics 620 vs Quadro FX 4800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4800 with UHD Graphics 620, including specs and performance data.

FX 4800
2008
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.56

UHD Graphics 620 outperforms FX 4800 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking828812
Place by popularitynot in top-10027
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.05no data
Power efficiency1.1712.30
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGT200BKaby Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)1 September 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,799 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 cores192192
Core clock speed602 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate38.5324.00
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs243
TMUs6424

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR3LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount1536 MB32 GB
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth76.8 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoPortable 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.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.3-

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 4800 2.56
UHD Graphics 620 2.68
+4.7%

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 4800 986
UHD Graphics 620 1030
+4.5%

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 HD12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%
1440p14−16
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
4K8−9
−12.5%
9
+12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p149.92no data
1440p128.50no data
4K224.88no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10
+0%
10
+0%
Metro Exodus 6
+0%
6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 9
+0%
9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Elden Ring 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 11
+0%
11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5
+0%
5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3
+0%
3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27
+0%
27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
World of Tanks 37
+0%
37
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+0%
14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
World of Tanks 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 4800 and UHD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics 620 is 8% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics 620 is 14% faster in 1440p
  • UHD Graphics 620 is 13% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.56 2.68
Recency 11 November 2008 1 September 2017
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 32 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 15 Watt

UHD Graphics 620 has a 4.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 2033.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro FX 4800 and UHD Graphics 620.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation card while UHD Graphics 620 is a notebook 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 FX 4800
Quadro FX 4800
Intel UHD Graphics 620
UHD Graphics 620

Other comparisons

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.


4 67 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4568 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.