Quadro K620 vs Radeon R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with Quadro K620, including specs and performance data.
R9 M390 outperforms K620 by an impressive 70% 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 | 527 | 668 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.10 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.03 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $189.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1024 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1058 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1124 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 26.98 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.8632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 160 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| 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 | GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 29 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 data | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| 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 | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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 | 43
+79.2%
| 24−27
−79.2%
|
| 4K | 20
+100%
| 10−12
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.91 |
| 4K | no data | 18.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+78%
|
50−55
−78%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+73.8%
|
80−85
−73.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+78%
|
50−55
−78%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+78%
|
50−55
−78%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+83.6%
|
55−60
−83.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+74.1%
|
27−30
−74.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
This is how R9 M390 and Quadro K620 compete in popular games:
- R9 M390 is 79% faster in 1080p
- R9 M390 is 100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.00 | 5.28 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 22 July 2014 |
R9 M390 has a 70% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 10 months.
The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook 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.
