Quadro NVS 160M vs UHD Graphics 620

Place in the ranking	813	1292
Place by popularity	27	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.32	2.01
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT2	G98
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 September 2017 (7 years ago)	15 August 2008 (16 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	192	8
Core clock speed	300 MHz	580 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	4.640
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.0232 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	4
TMUs	24	8

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).

Interface

Ring Bus

MXM-I

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	LPDDR3/DDR4	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	11.2 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

Portable Device Dependent

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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. 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.

UHD Graphics 620 2.68
+666%

NVS 160M 0.35

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.

UHD Graphics 620 1030
+663%

NVS 160M 135

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	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
1440p	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
4K	9 +800%	1−2 −800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +100%	3−4 −100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Metro Exodus	6	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Valorant	9 +800%	1−2 −800%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Dota 2	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry 5	12 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Fortnite	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	5	0−1
Metro Exodus	3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27 +286%	7−8 −286%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Valorant	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	37 +185%	12−14 −185%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Dota 2	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +133%	6−7 −133%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +257%	7−8 −257%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Valorant	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	7 −114%	14−16 +114%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Fortnite	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Valorant	2−3	0−1

This is how UHD Graphics 620 and NVS 160M compete in popular games:

UHD Graphics 620 is 1200% faster in 1080p
UHD Graphics 620 is 700% faster in 1440p
UHD Graphics 620 is 800% faster in 4K

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 620 is 850% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 160M is 114% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

UHD Graphics 620 is ahead in 26 tests (84%)
NVS 160M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (13%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.68	0.35
Recency	1 September 2017	15 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	12 Watt

UHD Graphics 620 has a 665.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 160M, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 620 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 160M 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.