NVIDIA GeForce GT 620 vs NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 620 and NVIDIA GeForce 8700M 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 620
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- Around 12% higher core clock speed: 700 MHz vs 625 MHz
- Around 12% higher texture fill rate: 11.2 billion / sec vs 10 GTexel / s
- 3x more pipelines: 96 vs 32
- 3.4x better floating-point performance: 268.8 gflops vs 80 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 80 nm
- 2x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 512 MB
- 3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 377 vs 124
- 2.8x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 159 vs 57
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 15 May 2012 vs 1 June 2007 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz vs 625 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 11.2 billion / sec vs 10 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 32 |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops vs 80 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 80 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 512 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 377 vs 124 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 159 vs 57 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT
- Around 69% lower typical power consumption: 29 Watt vs 49 Watt
- 1600x more memory clock speed: 1600 MHz vs 1.8 GB/s
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1701 vs 1683
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1701 vs 1683
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 29 Watt vs 49 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz vs 1.8 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1701 vs 1683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1701 vs 1683 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 377 | 124 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 159 | 57 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1544 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.046 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 83.907 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.371 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 6.791 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 17.41 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 614 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1162 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1683 | 1701 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 614 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1162 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1683 | 1701 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 620 | NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
| Code name | GF108 | G84 |
| Launch date | 15 May 2012 | 1 June 2007 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $39.99 | |
| Place in performance rating | 1545 | 1549 |
| Price now | $39.99 | |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.32 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 625 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 96 | |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops | 80 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | |
| Pipelines | 96 | 32 |
| Texture fill rate | 11.2 billion / sec | 10 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 49 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 289 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA | No outputs |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-HE |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
| Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 25.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| CUDA | ||
| Gigathread technology | ||
| HDCP-capable | ||
| HDR (High Dynamic-Range Lighting) | ||
| PCI-E 16x | ||
| PowerMizer 7.0 | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 620 with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 120M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 880M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 325M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620 vs
AMDRadeon Sky 900
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8280E
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620 vs
AMDRadeon R4 Graphics
