UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) vs Quadro K620M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K620M with UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU), including specs and performance data.

Quadro K620M
2015
2 GB DDR3, 30 Watt
3.02
+33.6%

K620M outperforms UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking771853
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.0215.75
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Gen. 11 (2021)
GPU code nameGM108Gen. 11
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 March 2015 (9 years ago)11 January 2021 (3 years ago)

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 cores38424
Core clock speed1029 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHz800 MHz
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt4.8 - 10 Watt
Texture fill rate17.98no data
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no 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).

InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed900 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth14.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
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.

Quadro K620M 3.02
+33.6%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 2.26

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.

Quadro K620M 2434
+66.9%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 1458

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.

Quadro K620M 1621
+46.6%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 1106

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.

Quadro K620M 9092
+8.4%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 8388

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 HD21
+90.9%
11
−90.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.3%
35−40
−8.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.3%
35−40
−8.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+21.1%
18−20
−21.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+250%
4
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+8.3%
35−40
−8.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

This is how Quadro K620M and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K620M is 91% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro K620M is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro K620M is ahead in 49 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.02 2.26
Recency 1 March 2015 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 4 Watt

Quadro K620M has a 33.6% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K620M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K620M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 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.

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 K620M
Quadro K620M
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 5 votes

Rate Quadro K620M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 58 votes

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 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.