GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Quadro K620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K620 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms K620 by a whopping 335% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 613 | 231 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.69 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.77 | 28.61 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (10 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189.89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 26.98 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 160 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | 128 Bit | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 29 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
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 | 16−18
−344%
| 71
+344%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−386%
| 34
+386%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.87 | no data |
| 1440p | 27.13 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K620 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 344% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 386% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.98 | 21.66 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 60 Watt |
Quadro K620 has 46.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 334.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K620 is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
