NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M vs Intel HD Graphics 4000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M and Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 month(s) later
• 6x more pipelines: 96 vs 16
• 7.5x better floating-point performance: 253.4 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
• 3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 45 Watt
• Around 24% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 432 vs 347
• 4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2141 vs 538
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 161.144 vs 155.638
• Around 38% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 16.605 vs 12.009
• Around 37% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1032 vs 754
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1595 vs 1492
• Around 37% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1032 vs 754
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1595 vs 1492

Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4000

• Around 47% higher boost clock speed: 1050 MHz vs 715 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 54% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 126
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 vs 4.233
• Around 79% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 vs 0.519
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 7.36 vs 7.151

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	432 347
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	126 194
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	2141 538
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4.233 8.712
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	161.144 155.638
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.519 0.931
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.151 7.36
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	16.605 12.009
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1032 754
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1595 1492
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 2392
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1032 754
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1595 1492
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 2392

Compare specifications (specs)