Quadro P620 vs Radeon R9 M395X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M395X with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.

R9 M395X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
11.62
+42.1%

R9 M395X outperforms P620 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking392479
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.3416.28
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameAmethystGP107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)1 February 2018 (7 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 cores2048512
Core clock speed723 MHz1177 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1443 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5446.18
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPS1.478 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12832

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s96.13 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
Mantle+-
CUDA-6.1

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.

R9 M395X 11.62
+42.1%
Quadro P620 8.18

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.

R9 M395X 5194
+42%
Quadro P620 3658

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.

R9 M395X 7921
+69.5%
Quadro P620 4673

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 HD65−70
+38.3%
47
−38.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+45.5%
21−24
−45.5%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+48.9%
45−50
−48.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+45.5%
21−24
−45.5%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+41%
35−40
−41%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+48.9%
45−50
−48.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+48.3%
27−30
−48.3%
Fortnite 70−75
−54.8%
113
+54.8%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+38.5%
35−40
−38.5%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+43.8%
30−35
−43.8%
Valorant 110−120
+26.4%
85−90
−26.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+45.5%
21−24
−45.5%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+41%
35−40
−41%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+48.9%
45−50
−48.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+29.2%
130−140
−29.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Dota 2 80−85
−7.1%
90
+7.1%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+48.3%
27−30
−48.3%
Fortnite 70−75
+73.8%
42
−73.8%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+38.5%
35−40
−38.5%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+45.5%
30−35
−45.5%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+52.9%
17
−52.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+43.8%
30−35
−43.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+6.3%
32
−6.3%
Valorant 110−120
+26.4%
85−90
−26.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+41%
35−40
−41%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Dota 2 80−85
+1.2%
83
−1.2%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+48.3%
27−30
−48.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+38.5%
35−40
−38.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+43.8%
30−35
−43.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+100%
17
−100%
Valorant 110−120
+26.4%
85−90
−26.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+152%
29
−152%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+60%
14−16
−60%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+39.7%
65−70
−39.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+139%
40−45
−139%
Valorant 130−140
+35%
100−105
−35%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+61.9%
21−24
−61.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+42.1%
18−20
−42.1%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
+42.1%
18−20
−42.1%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+20%
20−22
−20%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Valorant 65−70
+47.8%
45−50
−47.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 45−50
+43.8%
30−35
−43.8%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+46.7%
14−16
−46.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%

This is how R9 M395X and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

  • R9 M395X is 38% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M395X is 300% faster.
  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P620 is 55% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M395X is ahead in 61 test (97%)
  • Quadro P620 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.62 8.18
Recency 5 May 2015 1 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 40 Watt

R9 M395X has a 42.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro P620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 525% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M395X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M395X is a notebook card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.

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 M395X
Radeon R9 M395X
NVIDIA Quadro P620
Quadro P620

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 18 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M395X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 644 votes

Rate Quadro P620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M395X or Quadro P620, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.