Quadro RTX 8000 vs Quadro P620

Place in the ranking	463	62
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	1.92
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP107	TU102
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	1 February 2018 (6 years ago)	13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$9,999

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	4608
Core clock speed	1177 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1443 MHz	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	3,300 million	18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	46.18	509.8
Floating-point processing power	1.478 TFLOPS	16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	96
TMUs	32	288
Tensor Cores	no data	576
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	72

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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	145 mm	267 mm
Width	IGP	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	48 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96.13 GB/s	672.0 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

4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	6.1	7.5

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 P620 9.44

RTX 8000 49.98
+429%

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 P620 3642

RTX 8000 19278
+429%

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.

Quadro P620 12052

RTX 8000 151166
+1154%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P620 11137

RTX 8000 121497
+991%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P620 11727

RTX 8000 144049
+1128%

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

−411%

240−250
+411%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16

−400%

75−80
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −422%	120−130 +422%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −417%	150−160 +417%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −400%	75−80 +400%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −400%	110−120 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −376%	300−310 +376%
Hitman 3	18−20 −428%	95−100 +428%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −419%	270−280 +419%
Metro Exodus	35 −414%	180−190 +414%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55 −427%	290−300 +427%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −392%	300−310 +392%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −422%	120−130 +422%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −417%	150−160 +417%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −400%	75−80 +400%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −400%	110−120 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −376%	300−310 +376%
Hitman 3	18−20 −428%	95−100 +428%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −419%	270−280 +419%
Metro Exodus	28 −400%	140−150 +400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −416%	160−170 +416%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −400%	130−140 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −392%	300−310 +392%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −422%	120−130 +422%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −426%	100−105 +426%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −400%	75−80 +400%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −400%	110−120 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −376%	300−310 +376%
Hitman 3	18−20 −428%	95−100 +428%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −419%	270−280 +419%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −416%	160−170 +416%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	17 −429%	90−95 +429%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −392%	300−310 +392%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27
−400%

130−140

+400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −428%	95−100 +428%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −400%	70−75 +400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −400%	45−50 +400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −400%	45−50 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −400%	55−60 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −412%	210−220 +412%
Hitman 3	12−14 −400%	65−70 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −400%	100−105 +400%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −400%	65−70 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −400%	55−60 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −400%	45−50 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −400%	300−310 +400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

−400%

80−85
+400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −400%	45−50 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Hitman 3	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −413%	200−210 +413%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −400%	60−65 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −367%	14−16 +367%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
−400%

45−50

+400%

This is how Quadro P620 and RTX 8000 compete in popular games:

RTX 8000 is 411% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.44	49.98
Recency	1 February 2018	13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	48 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	260 Watt

Quadro P620 has 550% lower power consumption.

RTX 8000, on the other hand, has a 429.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P620 in performance tests.

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