NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K620 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M 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 Quadro K620

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 77% higher core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 598 MHz
• Around 14% higher pipelines: 384 vs 336
• Around 7% better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 803.7 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 83% lower typical power consumption: 41 Watt vs 75 Watt
• Around 34% higher maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1526 MB
• Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1500 MHz
• Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2226 vs 1751
• Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 478 vs 306
• Around 6% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6869 vs 6467
• Around 47% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.112 vs 15.053
• Around 87% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 99.125 vs 52.899
• Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2970 vs 2731
• Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2970 vs 2731

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

• Around 86% higher texture fill rate: 33.5 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s
• Around 98% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.645 vs 297.631
• Around 21% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.72 vs 1.427
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.916 vs 15.363
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3627 vs 2490
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 3329
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3627 vs 2490
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 3329
• 2.9x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2062 vs 702

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	2226 1751
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	478 306
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	6869 6467
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	22.112 15.053
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	297.631 588.645
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.427 1.72
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.363 35.916
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	99.125 52.899
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2970 2731
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2490 3627
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3329 3346
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2970 2731
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2490 3627
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3329 3346
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	702 2062

Compare specifications (specs)