Quadro K620 vs Radeon RX Vega M GH

Place in the ranking	320	598
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	2.71
Power efficiency	11.79	8.88
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	Polaris 22	GM107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	1 February 2018 (6 years ago)	22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$189.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1536	384
Core clock speed	1063 MHz	1058 MHz
Boost clock speed	1190 MHz	1124 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	41 Watt
Texture fill rate	114.2	26.98
Floating-point processing power	3.656 TFLOPS	0.8632 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	96	24

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	IGP	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	HBM2	128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	1024 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	204.8 GB/s	Up to 29 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays	no data	4

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Desktop Management	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
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.

RX Vega M GH 17.09
+195%

Quadro K620 5.79

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.

RX Vega M GH 6572
+195%

Quadro K620 2227

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	58 +222%	18−20 −222%
1440p	44 +214%	14−16 −214%
4K	30 +200%	10−12 −200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	10.55
1440p	no data	13.56
4K	no data	18.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	39 +225%	12−14 −225%
Elden Ring	50−55 +231%	16−18 −231%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +231%	16−18 −231%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	85 +215%	27−30 −215%
Metro Exodus	55 +206%	18−20 −206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	39 +225%	12−14 −225%
Valorant	65−70 +229%	21−24 −229%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +206%	18−20 −206%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
Dota 2	76 +217%	24−27 −217%
Elden Ring	50−55 +231%	16−18 −231%
Far Cry 5	46 +229%	14−16 −229%
Fortnite	90−95 +210%	30−33 −210%
Forza Horizon 4	68 +224%	21−24 −224%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +233%	18−20 −233%
Metro Exodus	38 +217%	12−14 −217%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	71 +196%	24−27 −196%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +242%	12−14 −242%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +231%	16−18 −231%
Valorant	41 +242%	12−14 −242%
World of Tanks	210−220 +201%	70−75 −201%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	41 +242%	12−14 −242%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
Dota 2	95 +217%	30−33 −217%
Far Cry 5	63 +200%	21−24 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +217%	18−20 −217%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 +236%	14−16 −236%
Valorant	65−70 +229%	21−24 −229%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Elden Ring	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +218%	50−55 −218%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
World of Tanks	110−120 +237%	35−40 −237%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +250%	10−11 −250%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	2	0−1
Far Cry 5	42 +200%	14−16 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +207%	14−16 −207%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +217%	12−14 −217%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
Valorant	40−45 +207%	14−16 −207%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Dota 2	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Elden Ring	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Metro Exodus	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	49 +206%	16−18 −206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Dota 2	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Far Cry 5	21 +200%	7−8 −200%
Fortnite	20−22 +233%	6−7 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +213%	8−9 −213%
Valorant	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%

This is how RX Vega M GH and Quadro K620 compete in popular games:

RX Vega M GH is 222% faster in 1080p
RX Vega M GH is 214% faster in 1440p
RX Vega M GH is 200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.09	5.79
Recency	1 February 2018	22 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	41 Watt

RX Vega M GH has a 195.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro K620, on the other hand, has 143.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega M GH is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GH is a notebook card while Quadro K620 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.