Quadro P620 vs Radeon R7 250E

Place in performance ranking	639	438
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.11	21.28
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	GP107
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	20 December 2013 (10 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	no data
Current price	$599 (5.5x MSRP)	$170

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P620 has 19245% better value for money than R7 250E.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	512	512
Core clock speed	800 MHz	1177 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1442 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.60	43.33
Floating-point performance	819.2 gflops	1,490 gflops

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	168 mm	145 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	4500 MHz	6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	80.13 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	4x mini-DisplayPort
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics 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	no data	6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

R7 250E 4.29

Quadro P620 9.40
+119%

Quadro P620 outperforms Radeon R7 250E by 119% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R7 250E 1970

Quadro P620 4673
+137%

Quadro P620 outperforms Radeon R7 250E by 137% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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

24−27

−129%

55
+129%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
−150%

14−16

+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −142%	27−30 +142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −120%	21−24 +120%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 −160%	24−27 +160%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −156%	45−50 +156%
Hitman 3	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −150%	35 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −160%	24−27 +160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −142%	27−30 +142%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −143%	30−35 +143%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −142%	27−30 +142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −120%	21−24 +120%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 −160%	24−27 +160%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −156%	45−50 +156%
Hitman 3	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −160%	24−27 +160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −142%	27−30 +142%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −129%	32 +129%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −143%	30−35 +143%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −138%	18−20 +138%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −120%	21−24 +120%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −156%	45−50 +156%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −142%	27−30 +142%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −143%	17 +143%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −143%	30−35 +143%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

−160%

24−27
+160%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −143%	16−18 +143%
Hitman 3	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 −122%	20−22 +122%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
−129%

16−18

+129%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Hitman 3	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−125%

9−10
+125%

This is how R7 250E and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

Quadro P620 is 129% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.29	9.40
Recency	20 December 2013	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	25 Watt