Radeon 620 vs Quadro NVS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 160M with Radeon 620, including specs and performance data.
620 outperforms 160M by a whopping 551% 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 | 1353 | 905 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.25 | 3.51 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | G98 | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2008 (17 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (7 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 | 8 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.640 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0232 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 16 KB | 128 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).
| Interface | MXM-I | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB/s | 14.4 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−229%
|
45−50
+229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 4−5 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 620 is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 620 performs better in 27 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 2.28 |
| Recency | 15 August 2008 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
NVS 160M has 317% lower power consumption.
Radeon 620, on the other hand, has a 551% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon 620 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
