Intel UHD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620

Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA Quadro K620 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 UHD Graphics 630

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 1 month(s) later
• Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• Around 60% higher texture fill rate: 28.8 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
• 2.7x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 41 Watt
• Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.517 vs 22.112
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 354.254 vs 297.631
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.807 vs 1.427
• Around 32% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 20.323 vs 15.363

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K620

• 3x more core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 350 MHz
• 16x more pipelines: 384 vs 24
• Around 87% better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 460.8 gflops
• Around 79% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2220 vs 1237
• Around 61% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 480 vs 299
• Around 47% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6869 vs 4657
• 3.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 99.125 vs 29.327
• Around 59% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2970 vs 1870
• Around 56% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2490 vs 1596
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3329 vs 3309
• Around 59% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2970 vs 1870
• Around 56% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2490 vs 1596
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3329 vs 3309
• 10.3x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 702 vs 68

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K620

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1237 2220
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	299 480
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4657 6869
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.517 22.112
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	354.254 297.631
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.807 1.427
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	20.323 15.363
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.327 99.125
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 2970
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 2490
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3329
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 2970
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 2490
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3329
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	68 702

Compare specifications (specs)