Quadro M620 vs Radeon RX 460

Place in performance ranking	400	507
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.24	0.50
Architecture	Polaris (2016−2019)	Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code name	Polaris 11 / Baffin XT	GM107
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	8 August 2016 (7 years ago)	13 January 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$86	no data
Current price	$397 (4.6x MSRP)	$1958

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 460 has 148% better value for money than Quadro M620.

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	896	512
Core clock speed	1090 MHz	1018 MHz
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	977 MHz
Number of transistors	3,000 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	31.26
Floating-point performance	2,150 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon RX 460 and Quadro M620 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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	170 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
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	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	7000 MHz	5012 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	no data
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	+	no data
Optimus	no data	+
3D Stereo	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12
Shader Model	6.4	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	no data	5.0

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.

RX 460 10.61
+45.7%

Quadro M620 7.28

Radeon RX 460 outperforms Quadro M620 by 46% 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%

RX 460 4102
+45.8%

Quadro M620 2813

Radeon RX 460 outperforms Quadro M620 by 46% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RX 460 8597
+126%

Quadro M620 3801

Radeon RX 460 outperforms Quadro M620 by 126% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RX 460 5701
+82.1%

Quadro M620 3130

Radeon RX 460 outperforms Quadro M620 by 82% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RX 460 34892
+57.7%

Quadro M620 22120

Radeon RX 460 outperforms Quadro M620 by 58% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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	42 +68%	25 −68%
1440p	96 +47.7%	65−70 −47.7%
4K	20 +53.8%	13 −53.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18
+33.3%

12−14

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	34 +127%	14−16 −127%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +57.1%	21−24 −57.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +34.8%	21−24 −34.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +52.6%	18−20 −52.6%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +119%	24−27 −119%
Hitman 3	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	138 +431%	24−27 −431%
Metro Exodus	44 +132%	18−20 −132%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +50%	20−22 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	28 +86.7%	14−16 −86.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Battlefield 5	22 +4.8%	21−24 −4.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	44 +91.3%	21−24 −91.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	34 +78.9%	18−20 −78.9%
Forza Horizon 4	54 +108%	24−27 −108%
Hitman 3	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	113 +335%	24−27 −335%
Metro Exodus	38 +100%	18−20 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +50%	20−22 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	13 −61.5%	21−24 +61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	37 +94.7%	19 −94.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	17 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +34.8%	21−24 −34.8%
Forza Horizon 4	41 +57.7%	24−27 −57.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	36 +38.5%	24−27 −38.5%
Metro Exodus	35 +84.2%	18−20 −84.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +130%	10 −130%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−33
+50%

20−22

−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +50%	14−16 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +63.6%	10−12 −63.6%
Hitman 3	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +54.5%	10−12 −54.5%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	25 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	22 +22.2%	18−20 −22.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +200%	4−5 −200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Battlefield 5	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	13 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Metro Exodus	12 +50%	8−9 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+42.9%

7−8

−42.9%

This is how RX 460 and Quadro M620 compete in popular games:

RX 460 is 68% faster in 1080p
RX 460 is 48% faster in 1440p
RX 460 is 54% faster in 4K

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

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 460 is 431% faster.
in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M620 is 62% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 460 is ahead in 70 tests (97%)
Quadro M620 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.61	7.28
Recency	8 August 2016	13 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	30 Watt