Quadro M620 vs Radeon R9 M390
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M390 with Quadro M620, including specs and performance data.
R9 M390 outperforms M620 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 459 | 545 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 16.57 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 11 January 2017 (8 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 | 1024 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 756 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 977 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5000 Million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 31.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1 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).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 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 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
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 | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
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 |
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 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 44
+51.7%
| 29
−51.7%
|
| 4K | 21
+75%
| 12
−75%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+45%
|
20−22
−45%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+39.1%
|
21−24
−39.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
27−30
−37.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+42.1%
|
18−20
−42.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+30%
|
20−22
−30%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+52%
|
24−27
−52%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+39.1%
|
21−24
−39.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
−13.6%
|
24−27
+13.6%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+45%
|
20−22
−45%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+34.9%
|
40−45
−34.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
27−30
−37.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+36%
|
24−27
−36%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+42.1%
|
18−20
−42.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+103%
|
38
−103%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+30%
|
20−22
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+50%
|
21−24
−50%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+52%
|
24−27
−52%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
+28.8%
|
110−120
−28.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+39.1%
|
21−24
−39.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+44%
|
24−27
−44%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
27−30
−37.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+32.8%
|
55−60
−32.8%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+52%
|
24−27
−52%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+20.5%
|
35−40
−20.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
+36.5%
|
50−55
−36.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16
−81.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
This is how R9 M390 and Quadro M620 compete in popular games:
- R9 M390 is 52% faster in 1080p
- R9 M390 is 75% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M390 is 300% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M620 is 14% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M390 is ahead in 61 test (97%)
- Quadro M620 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.91 | 7.21 |
| Recency | 9 June 2015 | 11 January 2017 |
R9 M390 has a 37.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro M620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M620 is a mobile 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.
