NVIDIA Quadro P620 vs AMD Radeon R9 M290X

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P620 and AMD Radeon R9 M290X 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).

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P620

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 49% higher core clock speed: 1266 MHz vs 850 MHz
• Around 50% higher boost clock speed: 1354 MHz vs 900 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 100 Watt
• 4.2x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 1200 MHz
• Around 12% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3645 vs 3256
• Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 545 vs 430
• Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3881 vs 2581
• 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6631 vs 2526
• Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3881 vs 2581
• 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6631 vs 2526

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M290X

• Around 55% higher texture fill rate: 72 GTexel / s vs 46.56 GTexel / s
• 2.5x more pipelines: 1280 vs 512
• Around 55% better floating-point performance: 2,304 gflops vs 1,490 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 88% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 23514 vs 12475
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 51.022 vs 43.877
• Around 21% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 936.497 vs 773.248
• Around 82% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.62 vs 3.082
• Around 45% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 77.584 vs 53.425
• Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 258.046 vs 184.343
• Around 86% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6666 vs 3575
• Around 86% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6666 vs 3575

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P620
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M290X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3645 3256
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	545 430
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12475 23514
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	43.877 51.022
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	773.248 936.497
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.082 5.62
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	53.425 77.584
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	184.343 258.046
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3575 6666
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3881 2581
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6631 2526
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3575 6666
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3881 2581
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6631 2526

Compare specifications (specs)