Quadro K620 vs Quadro M2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000M with Quadro K620, including specs and performance data.

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
7.72
+55%

M2000M outperforms K620 by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking505614
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.69
Power efficiency11.138.78
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGM107GM107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date3 December 2015 (9 years ago)22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$189.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores640384
Core clock speed1029 MHz1058 MHz
Boost clock speed1098 MHz1124 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt41 Watt
Texture fill rate43.9226.98
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPS0.8632 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4024

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sUp to 29 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro++
Mosaic++
nView Display Management+no data
nView Desktop Managementno data+
Optimus+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA5.05.0

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.

M2000M 7.72
+55%
Quadro K620 4.98

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.

M2000M 3448
+55%
Quadro K620 2225

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.

M2000M 9889
+47.8%
Quadro K620 6693

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.

M2000M 9556
+61.4%
Quadro K620 5921

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.

M2000M 10438
+56.9%
Quadro K620 6653

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 HD36
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
4K11
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data9.04
4Kno data27.13

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Fortnite 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Valorant 80−85
+68%
50−55
−68%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+62.5%
80−85
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Dota 2 60−65
+77.1%
35−40
−77.1%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Fortnite 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 30
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Valorant 80−85
+68%
50−55
−68%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Dota 2 60−65
+77.1%
35−40
−77.1%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Valorant 80−85
+68%
50−55
−68%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+60%
40−45
−60%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%
Valorant 90−95
+56.7%
60−65
−56.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+80%
5−6
−80%
Valorant 40−45
+59.3%
27−30
−59.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

This is how M2000M and Quadro K620 compete in popular games:

  • M2000M is 71% faster in 1080p
  • M2000M is 57% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.72 4.98
Recency 3 December 2015 22 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 41 Watt

M2000M has a 55% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro K620, on the other hand, has 34.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro K620 is a workstation one.

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 M2000M
Quadro M2000M
NVIDIA Quadro K620
Quadro K620

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 534 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 668 votes

Rate Quadro K620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M2000M or Quadro K620, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.