Radeon RX 590 vs Quadro K620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K620 with Radeon RX 590, including specs and performance data.
RX 590 outperforms K620 by a whopping 321% 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 | 614 | 246 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 93 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.81 | 23.23 |
| Power efficiency | 8.76 | 9.48 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Polaris 30 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (10 years ago) | 15 November 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189.89 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 590 has 727% better value for money than Quadro K620.
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 1469 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.98 | 222.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
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 | 160 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 29 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| 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 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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 | 24−27
−325%
| 102
+325%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−329%
| 60
+329%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−322%
| 38
+322%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.91
−189%
| 2.74
+189%
|
| 1440p | 13.56
−192%
| 4.65
+192%
|
| 4K | 21.10
−187%
| 7.34
+187%
|
- RX 590 has 189% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 590 has 192% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 590 has 187% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 301
+0%
|
301
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 138
+0%
|
138
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Valorant | 287
+0%
|
287
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 96
+0%
|
96
+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 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 232
+0%
|
232
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Valorant | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+0%
|
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 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K620 and RX 590 compete in popular games:
- RX 590 is 325% faster in 1080p
- RX 590 is 329% faster in 1440p
- RX 590 is 322% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.56 | 23.43 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 15 November 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 41 Watt | 175 Watt |
Quadro K620 has 326.8% lower power consumption.
RX 590, on the other hand, has a 321.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K620 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 590 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
