Radeon R7 250X vs Quadro M620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M620 with Radeon R7 250X, including specs and performance data.
M620 outperforms R7 250X by a significant 21% 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 | 606 | 655 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.63 |
| Power efficiency | 16.86 | 5.21 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 756 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 977 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.26 | 38.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 1.216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 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 | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1 x 6-pin |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 96 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| 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.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| 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 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
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.
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.
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
+23.8%
| 21−24
−23.8%
|
| 4K | 10
+25%
| 8−9
−25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.71 |
| 4K | no data | 12.38 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+21.7%
|
60−65
−21.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+28.2%
|
85−90
−28.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+21.7%
|
60−65
−21.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+21.7%
|
60−65
−21.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+30%
|
30−33
−30%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+25%
|
60−65
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+25.9%
|
27−30
−25.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
This is how Quadro M620 and R7 250X compete in popular games:
- Quadro M620 is 24% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M620 is 25% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.56 | 5.40 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 13 February 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 80 Watt |
Quadro M620 has a 21.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 166.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M620 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
