Quadro P620 vs Radeon R5 M420
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M420 with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.
P620 outperforms R5 M420 by a whopping 638% 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 | 1099 | 530 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.04 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 May 2016 (9 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (8 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 | 320 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | 1177 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 1443 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 46.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.544 TFLOPS | 1.478 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 20 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 96.13 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 | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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 | 6−7
−683%
| 47
+683%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 0−1 | 16−18 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3667%
|
113
+3667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−167%
|
85−90
+167%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−393%
|
130−140
+393%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−463%
|
90
+463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−357%
|
32
+357%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−167%
|
85−90
+167%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−419%
|
83
+419%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−143%
|
17
+143%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−167%
|
85−90
+167%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−867%
|
29
+867%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−750%
|
65−70
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−292%
|
45−50
+292%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−683%
|
45−50
+683%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how R5 M420 and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P620 is 683% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P620 is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P620 performs better in 43 tests (74%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (26%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.20 | 8.85 |
| Recency | 15 May 2016 | 1 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
R5 M420 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro P620, on the other hand, has a 638% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M420 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M420 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
