NVIDIA Quadro P620 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P620 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000 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 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
• Around 59% higher core clock speed: 1266 MHz vs 796 MHz
• Around 16% higher boost clock speed: 1354 MHz vs 1163 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 88% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 75 Watt
• Around 21% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 773.248 vs 639.056
• Around 49% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 53.425 vs 35.796
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3881 vs 3684
• Around 99% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6631 vs 3325
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3881 vs 3684
• Around 99% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6631 vs 3325

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M2000

• Around 22% higher texture fill rate: 56.64 GTexel / s vs 46.56 GTexel / s
• Around 50% higher pipelines: 768 vs 512
• Around 22% better floating-point performance: 1,812 gflops vs 1,490 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 32% higher memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 5012 MHz
• Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3998 vs 3625
• Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 569 vs 559
• Around 12% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14031 vs 12475
• Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 55.048 vs 43.877
• Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.697 vs 3.082
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 225.868 vs 184.343
• Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5523 vs 3575
• Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5523 vs 3575

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P620
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M2000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3625 3998
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	559 569
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	12475 14031
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	43.877 55.048
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	773.248 639.056
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.082 3.697
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	53.425 35.796
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	184.343 225.868
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3575 5523
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3881 3684
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6631 3325
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3575 5523
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3881 3684
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6631 3325

Compare specifications (specs)