UHD Graphics 620 vs Quadro K5000M

Place in the ranking	540	805
Place by popularity	not in top-100	24
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.16	no data
Power efficiency	5.02	12.41
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GK104	Kaby Lake GT2
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	7 August 2012 (12 years ago)	1 September 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$329.99	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 cores	1344	192
Core clock speed	601 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.31	24.00
Floating-point processing power	1.615 TFLOPS	0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	3
TMUs	112	24

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)	Ring Bus

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	GDDR5	LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	750 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
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.

K5000M 7.20
+170%

UHD Graphics 620 2.67

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.

K5000M 2778
+170%

UHD Graphics 620 1030

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

K5000M 4893
+181%

UHD Graphics 620 1744

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.

K5000M 20139
+175%

UHD Graphics 620 7330

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

K5000M 2798
+140%

UHD Graphics 620 1168

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

K5000M 23061
+147%

UHD Graphics 620 9324

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

K5000M 47
+147%

UHD Graphics 620 19

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	50 +285%	13 −285%
1440p	35−40 +169%	13 −169%
4K	21−24 +163%	8 −163%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.60	no data
1440p	9.43	no data
4K	15.71	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−12
+83.3%

−83.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +125%	8 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10	0−1
Battlefield 5	21−24 +163%	8 −163%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +150%	6 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +100%	10 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +23.7%	38 −23.7%
Hitman 3	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +5%	40 −5%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +122%	9 −122%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +60%	15 −60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +80%	30 −80%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10	0−1
Battlefield 5	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +30.6%	36 −30.6%
Hitman 3	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +23.5%	34 −23.5%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +118%	11 −118%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +57.1%	14 −57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +42.1%	35−40 −42.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +262%	12−14 −262%
Hitman 3	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +740%	5 −740%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +71.4%	14 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +633%	3 −633%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +42.1%	35−40 −42.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22
+233%

6−7

−233%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +189%	9−10 −189%
Hitman 3	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +188%	16−18 −188%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+100%

6−7

−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Hitman 3	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +188%	8−9 −188%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

This is how K5000M and UHD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:

K5000M is 285% faster in 1080p
K5000M is 169% faster in 1440p
K5000M is 163% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K5000M is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, K5000M surpassed UHD Graphics 620 in all 57 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.20	2.67
Recency	7 August 2012	1 September 2017
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt

K5000M has a 169.7% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K5000M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics 620 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.