GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs Quadro K620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K620 with GeForce GTX 550 Ti, including specs and performance data.
K620 outperforms GTX 550 Ti by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 599 | 697 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 65 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.71 | 0.78 |
| Power efficiency | 8.88 | 2.40 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (10 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189.89 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro K620 has 247% better value for money than GTX 550 Ti.
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 | 384 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 116 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 26.98 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | 128 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 4.1 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 29 GB/s | 98.4 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.0 | + |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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:
| 900p | 50−55
+31.6%
| 38
−31.6%
|
| Full HD | 50−55
+38.9%
| 36
−38.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.80
+9%
| 4.14
−9%
|
- Quadro K620 has 9% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K620 and GTX 550 Ti compete in popular games:
- Quadro K620 is 32% faster in 900p
- Quadro K620 is 39% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.79 | 4.04 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 15 March 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 116 Watt |
Quadro K620 has a 43.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 182.9% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K620 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
