Quadro P620 vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
20.92
+123%

Radeon R9 290 outperforms Quadro P620 by a whopping 123% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking245439
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.4520.73
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameHawaiiGP107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date5 November 2013 (10 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data
Current price$20 (0.1x MSRP)$170

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P620 has 67% better value for money than R9 290.

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 cores2560512
Core clock speed947 MHz1177 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1442 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate151.543.33
Floating-point performance4,849 gflops1,490 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mm145 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s80.13 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
HDMI+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDAno data6.1

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.

R9 290 20.92
+123%
Quadro P620 9.38

Radeon R9 290 outperforms Quadro P620 by 123% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R9 290 8093
+123%
Quadro P620 3628

Radeon R9 290 outperforms Quadro P620 by 123% in Passmark.

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%

R9 290 11860
+154%
Quadro P620 4673

Radeon R9 290 outperforms Quadro P620 by 154% 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 HD110−120
+112%
52
−112%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.92 9.38
Recency 5 November 2013 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 25 Watt

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA Quadro P620
Quadro P620

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 496 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 547 votes

Rate Quadro P620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.