NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 580
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K620 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 580 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
- 2.4x more core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 450 MHz
- 2.5x more texture fill rate: 17.98 GTexel / s vs 7.2 GTexel / s
- 12x more pipelines: 384 vs 32
- 12x better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 72 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 12.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2220 vs 174
- 11.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 480 vs 41
- Around 97% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3329 vs 1687
- Around 97% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3329 vs 1687
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 vs 9 April 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz vs 450 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s vs 7.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 32 |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops vs 72 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2220 vs 174 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 480 vs 41 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3329 vs 1687 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3329 vs 1687 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 580
- Around 3% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 41 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt vs 41 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 580
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 580 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2220 | 174 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 480 | 41 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6869 | |
| 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 | 1687 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2970 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2490 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3329 | 1687 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 702 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K620 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 580 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla |
| Code name | GM107 | G96C |
| Launch date | 22 July 2014 | 9 April 2009 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $189.89 | $199 |
| Place in performance rating | 953 | 1585 |
| Price now | $189.93 | $59.46 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 15.23 | 5.88 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1058 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 72 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 32 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | 7.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 314 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 | None |
| 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 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | 128 Bit | GDDR3 |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 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
