Intel HD Graphics 515 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 515 and NVIDIA Quadro K620M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 515
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 month(s) later
- 1268.1x more texture fill rate: 22.80 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 2x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 30 Watt
- 8x more maximum memory size: 16 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 21% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 191 vs 158
- Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1657 vs 1349
- Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1657 vs 1349
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 vs 1 March 2015 |
| Texture fill rate | 22.80 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 30 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 191 vs 158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1657 vs 1349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1657 vs 1349 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K620M
- 3.4x more core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Around 18% higher boost clock speed: 1124 MHz vs 950 MHz
- 16x more pipelines: 384 vs 24
- Around 84% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1165 vs 633
- Around 61% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4583 vs 2848
- 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1291 vs 455
- 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1291 vs 455
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 927 vs 881
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 927 vs 881
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz vs 950 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 24 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1165 vs 633 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4583 vs 2848 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1291 vs 455 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1291 vs 455 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 927 vs 881 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 927 vs 881 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 515
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K620M
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 515 | NVIDIA Quadro K620M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 191 | 158 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 633 | 1165 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2848 | 4583 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 455 | 1291 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 455 | 1291 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 881 | 927 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 881 | 927 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1657 | 1349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1657 | 1349 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.872 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 165.904 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 91.813 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 515 | NVIDIA Quadro K620M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Maxwell |
| Code name | Skylake GT2 | GM108 |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 | 1 March 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 1428 | 1429 |
| Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 91.20 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 729.6 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 364.8 GFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 24 | 384 |
| Pixel fill rate | 2.850 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 22.80 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory type | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Shared memory | Yes | 0 |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 515 with others
IntelHD Graphics 515 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 8300
IntelHD Graphics 515 vs
AMDFirePro M8900
IntelHD Graphics 515 vs
NVIDIANVS 510
IntelHD Graphics 515 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K620M
IntelHD Graphics 515 vs
IntelIris Xe Graphics G7 80EU
IntelHD Graphics 515 vs
IntelIris Xe Graphics G7 96EU
