Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P620 vs M1000M
Aggregated performance score
P620 outperforms M1000M by 26% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 497 | 435 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Value for money | 0.82 | 20.76 |
Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
GPU code name | GM107 | GP107 |
Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years old) | 27 May 2019 (4 years old) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $200.89 | no data |
Current price | $706 (3.5x MSRP) | $170 |
Quadro P620 has 2432% better value for money than M1000M.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 512 |
Core clock speed | 993 MHz | 1177 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1072 MHz | 1442 MHz |
Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 3,300 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 25 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 31.78 | 43.33 |
Floating-point performance | 1,017 gflops | 1,490 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro M1000M and Quadro P620 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
Laptop size | large | no data |
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 145 mm |
Width | no data | 1-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB/4 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 6000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 80.13 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Optimus | + | no data |
3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
Mosaic | + | no data |
nView Display Management | + | no data |
Optimus | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | 5.0 | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
P620 outperforms M1000M by 26% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 26% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 40% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 34% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 30% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 38% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 46% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 38% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 34% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 32% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 62% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 45% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 75% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 26% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 129% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase
Benchmark coverage: 2%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 25% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.
SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.
Benchmark coverage: 2%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 33% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.
SPECviewperf 12 - Catia
Benchmark coverage: 2%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 46% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.
SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks
Benchmark coverage: 2%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 32% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.
SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX
Benchmark coverage: 2%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 62% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.
SPECviewperf 12 - Creo
Benchmark coverage: 2%
P620 outperforms M1000M by 76% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.
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 | 39
−23.1%
| 48
+23.1%
|
4K | 13
−23.1%
| 16−18
+23.1%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−19%
|
24−27
+19%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
Hitman 3 | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16
−6.3%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−19%
|
24−27
+19%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
Hitman 3 | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
Metro Exodus | 10−12
−54.5%
|
17
+54.5%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+30.8%
|
13
−30.8%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−68.4%
|
32
+68.4%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−27.8%
|
21−24
+27.8%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−26.9%
|
30−35
+26.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−54.5%
|
17
+54.5%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
Metro Exodus | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
This is how M1000M and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- Quadro P620 is 23.1% faster than M1000M
4K resolution:
- Quadro P620 is 23.1% faster than M1000M
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M1000M is 30.8% faster than the Quadro P620.
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P620 is 200% faster than the M1000M.
All in all, in popular games:
- M1000M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- Quadro P620 is ahead in 63 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score | 7.43 | 9.36 |
Recency | 2 October 2015 | 27 May 2019 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 25 Watt |
The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.