NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs AMD FirePro M8900
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K620M and AMD FirePro M8900 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 - 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K620M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 51% higher core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 680 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 23.872 vs 10.529
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 March 2015 vs 12 April 2011 |
Core clock speed | 1029 MHz vs 680 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.872 vs 10.529 |
Reasons to consider the AMD FirePro M8900
- Around 81% higher texture fill rate: 32.6 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- 2.5x more pipelines: 960 vs 384
- Around 51% better floating-point performance: 1,305.6 gflops vs 863.2 gflops
- 2x more memory clock speed: 3600 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- 4.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18738 vs 4583
- 4.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 760.858 vs 165.904
- Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 108.525 vs 91.813
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 32.6 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 960 vs 384 |
Floating-point performance | 1,305.6 gflops vs 863.2 gflops |
Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 18738 vs 4583 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 760.858 vs 165.904 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 108.525 vs 91.813 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620M
GPU 2: AMD FirePro M8900
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro K620M | AMD FirePro M8900 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1165 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 158 | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4583 | 18738 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.872 | 10.529 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 165.904 | 760.858 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 91.813 | 108.525 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1291 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 927 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1349 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1291 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 927 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1349 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.158 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 26.149 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro K620M | AMD FirePro M8900 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Maxwell | TeraScale 2 |
Code name | GM108 | Blackcomb |
Launch date | 1 March 2015 | 12 April 2011 |
Place in performance rating | 1429 | 1431 |
Type | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 680 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 1,305.6 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 960 |
Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | 32.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,700 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Bus support | n / a | |
Form factor | MXM-B | |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Shader Model | 5 | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 115 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 3600 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
CUDA | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |