Quadro P620 vs Radeon R6 (Mullins)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 (Mullins) with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.
P620 outperforms R6 (Mullins) by a whopping 1389% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1198 | 471 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 16.37 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Mullins | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (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 | 128 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1177 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1443 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 46.18 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.478 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96.13 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 data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 3−4
−1500%
| 48
+1500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−700%
|
64
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−5500%
|
55−60
+5500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1289%
|
125
+1289%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−480%
|
27−30
+480%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
−667%
|
130−140
+667%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−388%
|
35−40
+388%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−443%
|
35−40
+443%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−722%
|
70−75
+722%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1767%
|
55−60
+1767%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
−3300%
|
65−70
+3300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−400%
|
20−22
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how R6 (Mullins) and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P620 is 1500% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P620 is 5500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P620 is ahead in 33 tests (53%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (47%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.61 | 9.08 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 1 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
Quadro P620 has a 1388.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 (Mullins) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R6 (Mullins) is a notebook card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
