NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K620 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 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 5 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 76% higher core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 600 MHz
- 2x more pipelines: 384 vs 192
- Around 87% better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 462.3 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 2.6x lower typical power consumption: 41 Watt vs 108 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2220 vs 825
- 9.8x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 480 vs 49
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3329 vs 3258
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3329 vs 3258
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 vs 30 March 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt vs 108 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2220 vs 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 480 vs 49 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3329 vs 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3329 vs 3258 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
- 2.1x more texture fill rate: 38.4 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- Around 94% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13337 vs 6869
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 38.4 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13337 vs 6869 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2220 | 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 480 | 49 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6869 | 13337 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.112 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 297.631 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.427 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.363 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 99.125 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2970 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2490 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3329 | 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2970 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2490 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3329 | 3258 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 702 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K620 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GM107 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 | 30 March 2009 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189.89 | $799 |
| Place in performance rating | 953 | 1363 |
| Price now | $189.93 | $109.99 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 15.23 | 9.89 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, DVI-I DP | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 160 mm | 198 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | 128 Bit | GDDR3 |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K620 with others
NVIDIAQuadro K620 vs
NVIDIATesla K10
NVIDIAQuadro K620 vs
NVIDIATesla K20c
NVIDIAQuadro K620 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8410G IGP
NVIDIAQuadro K620 vs
IntelIris Graphics 550
NVIDIAQuadro K620 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 945M
NVIDIAQuadro K620 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M520 Mobile
