Quadro P620 vs Radeon R9 M485X

Place in performance ranking	433	437
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.54	20.72
Architecture	GCN 3 (2014−2016)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Amethyst	GP107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	14 May 2016 (8 years ago)	27 May 2019 (4 years ago)
Current price	$2500	$170

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P620 has 3737% better value for money than R9 M485X.

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 cores	2048	512
Core clock speed	723 MHz	1177 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1442 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	43.33
Floating-point performance	2,961 gflops	1,490 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R9 M485X and Quadro P620 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	5000 MHz	6000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 GB/s	80.13 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 Connectors

No outputs

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	no data	6.1

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 M485X 9.46
+1%

Quadro P620 9.37

Radeon R9 M485X outperforms Quadro P620 by 1% 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 M485X 3660
+0.9%

Quadro P620 3626

Radeon R9 M485X outperforms Quadro P620 by 1% in Passmark.

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

45−50

−6.7%

48
+6.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +25%	16 −25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −21.4%	17 +21.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +53.8%	13 −53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −68.4%	32 +68.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +5.3%	18−20 −5.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +11.8%	17 −11.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how R9 M485X and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

Quadro P620 is 7% faster in 1080p

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

in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M485X is 54% faster than the Quadro P620.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P620 is 68% faster than the R9 M485X.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M485X is ahead in 9 tests (13%)
Quadro P620 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
there's a draw in 57 tests (84%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.46	9.37
Recency	14 May 2016	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	25 Watt