Quadro K620 vs Radeon R9 FURY X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 FURY X with Quadro K620, including specs and performance data.
R9 FURY X outperforms K620 by a whopping 327% 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 | 283 | 674 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.92 | 1.11 |
| Power efficiency | 6.33 | 9.08 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 24 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $189.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 FURY X has 433% better value for money than Quadro K620.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4096 | 384 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1058 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 268.8 | 26.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.602 TFLOPS | 0.8632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 256 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 195 mm | 160 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | 128 Bit |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | Up to 29 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.69 | 5.32 |
| Recency | 24 June 2015 | 22 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 41 Watt |
R9 FURY X has a 327% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K620, on the other hand, has 571% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K620 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.
