Quadro T1000 Max-Q vs Quadro M620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M620 and Quadro T1000 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T1000 Max-Q outperforms M620 by a whopping 142% 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 | 605 | 364 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 16.97 | 24.64 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (6 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 cores | 512 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 756 MHz | 765 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 977 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.26 | 75.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 2.419 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 26
−131%
| 60−65
+131%
|
| 4K | 10
−140%
| 24−27
+140%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−171%
|
90−95
+171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−143%
|
30−35
+143%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−141%
|
70−75
+141%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−171%
|
90−95
+171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−143%
|
30−35
+143%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
−144%
|
65−70
+144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−152%
|
50−55
+152%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−120%
|
90−95
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−123%
|
65−70
+123%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−144%
|
60−65
+144%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−75.7%
|
130−140
+75.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−141%
|
70−75
+141%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−171%
|
90−95
+171%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−93.6%
|
210−220
+93.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−143%
|
30−35
+143%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−86.8%
|
95−100
+86.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
−144%
|
65−70
+144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−152%
|
50−55
+152%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−120%
|
90−95
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−123%
|
65−70
+123%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−154%
|
60−65
+154%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−162%
|
30−35
+162%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−144%
|
60−65
+144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−132%
|
40−45
+132%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−75.7%
|
130−140
+75.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−141%
|
70−75
+141%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−143%
|
30−35
+143%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−86.8%
|
95−100
+86.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
−144%
|
65−70
+144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−152%
|
50−55
+152%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−123%
|
65−70
+123%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−144%
|
60−65
+144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−340%
|
40−45
+340%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−75.7%
|
130−140
+75.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
−120%
|
90−95
+120%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−146%
|
30−35
+146%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−131%
|
120−130
+131%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−295%
|
150−160
+295%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−115%
|
160−170
+115%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−283%
|
45−50
+283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−162%
|
30−35
+162%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−157%
|
35−40
+157%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−164%
|
35−40
+164%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−76.5%
|
30−33
+76.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−168%
|
90−95
+168%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−142%
|
55−60
+142%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−180%
|
27−30
+180%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
This is how Quadro M620 and T1000 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q is 131% faster in 1080p
- T1000 Max-Q is 140% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T1000 Max-Q surpassed Quadro M620 in all 67 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.63 | 16.04 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 50 Watt |
Quadro M620 has 66.7% lower power consumption.
T1000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 141.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M620 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
