GeForce GT 230 vs Quadro M620

Place in the ranking	542	1143
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	16.74	0.77
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM107	G94B
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$43.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	512	48
Core clock speed	756 MHz	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	977 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.26	15.60
Floating-point processing power	1 TFLOPS	0.156 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	24

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	57.6 GB/s
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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	1.1

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 M620 7.28
+767%

GT 230 0.84

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.

Quadro M620 2799
+767%

GT 230 323

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	29 +867%	3−4 −867%
4K	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	14.66
4K	no data	43.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Elden Ring	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Valorant	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Dota 2	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Elden Ring	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +967%	3−4 −967%
Fortnite	40−45 +975%	4−5 −975%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	38 +850%	4−5 −850%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Valorant	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
World of Tanks	110−120 +833%	12−14 −833%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Dota 2	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +967%	3−4 −967%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +883%	6−7 −883%
Valorant	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9	0−1
Elden Ring	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +875%	4−5 −875%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
World of Tanks	50−55 +783%	6−7 −783%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Valorant	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Elden Ring	4−5	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Fortnite	7−8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
Valorant	7−8	0−1

This is how Quadro M620 and GT 230 compete in popular games:

Quadro M620 is 867% faster in 1080p
Quadro M620 is 1100% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.28	0.84
Recency	11 January 2017	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro M620 has a 766.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M620 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 230 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.