NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K620M and NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K620M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- 4x more pipelines: 384 vs 96
- 3.3x better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 264 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 3.5x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 5.3x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 384 MB
- 2.3x more memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 800 MHz
- 3.5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1163 vs 328
- Around 62% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 157 vs 97
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 March 2015 vs 28 April 2008 |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 96 |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops vs 264 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 384 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1163 vs 328 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 157 vs 97 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
- Around 34% higher core clock speed: 1375 MHz vs 1029 MHz
- Around 47% higher texture fill rate: 26.4 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- Around 60% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2160 vs 1349
- Around 60% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2160 vs 1349
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1375 MHz vs 1029 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 26.4 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2160 vs 1349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2160 vs 1349 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K620M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro K620M | NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1163 | 328 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 157 | 97 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5974 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 23.872 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 165.904 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 91.813 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1291 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 927 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1349 | 2160 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1291 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 927 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1349 | 2160 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro K620M | NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla |
| Code name | GM108 | G92 |
| Launch date | 1 March 2015 | 28 April 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1414 | 1411 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $49.99 | |
| Price now | $49.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.43 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 264 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 96 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | 26.4 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 105 Watt |
| CUDA cores | 96 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
| Transistor count | 754 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 6-pin |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 384 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 38.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro K620M with others
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
ATIRadeon 7200
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9600 GSO
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
IntelHD Graphics 4400
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
AMDRadeon R7 M265
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
AMDRadeon R6 Graphics
NVIDIAQuadro K620M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 615
