Intel HD Graphics 620 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 620 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT 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 - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 620
- Videocard is newer: launch date 8 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 20% better floating-point performance: 403.2 gflops vs 336.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 65 nm
- 7x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 64x more maximum memory size: 32 GB vs 512 MB
- 2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 922 vs 454
- 3.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 216 vs 56
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3340 vs 3304
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3340 vs 3304
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 30 August 2016 vs 21 July 2008 |
| Floating-point performance | 403.2 gflops vs 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB vs 512 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 922 vs 454 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 216 vs 56 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 vs 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 vs 3304 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
- 5x more core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Around 33% higher texture fill rate: 33.6 billion / sec vs 25.2 GTexel / s
- 4.7x more pipelines: 112 vs 24
- Around 64% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2845 vs 1733
- Around 64% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2845 vs 1733
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 33.6 billion / sec vs 25.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 112 vs 24 |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2845 vs 1733 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2845 vs 1733 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 922 | 454 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 216 | 56 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4178 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.275 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 227.879 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.508 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.582 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 30.288 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1404 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1733 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1404 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1733 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3304 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 343 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Tesla |
| Code name | Kaby Lake GT2 | G92 |
| Launch date | 30 August 2016 | 21 July 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1334 | 1063 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | |
| Price now | $103.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.86 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 403.2 gflops | 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 112 |
| Texture fill rate | 25.2 GTexel / s | 33.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory type | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 620 with others
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
NVIDIAGeForce3 Ti500
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
ATIMobility Radeon X1300
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 2400
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8570D
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8450G
IntelHD Graphics 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8550 OEM
