RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Quadro M620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M620 with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms M620 by a whopping 519% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 590 | 106 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 36.29 |
| Power efficiency | 16.80 | 44.60 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | AD107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 756 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 977 MHz | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.26 | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 26
−515%
| 160−170
+515%
|
| 4K | 10
−500%
| 60−65
+500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.06 |
| 4K | no data | 10.82 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−506%
|
200−210
+506%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−515%
|
80−85
+515%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−486%
|
170−180
+486%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−506%
|
200−210
+506%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−515%
|
80−85
+515%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−519%
|
130−140
+519%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−510%
|
250−260
+510%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−500%
|
180−190
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−500%
|
150−160
+500%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−516%
|
450−500
+516%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−486%
|
170−180
+486%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−506%
|
200−210
+506%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−496%
|
650−700
+496%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−515%
|
80−85
+515%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−466%
|
300−310
+466%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−519%
|
130−140
+519%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−510%
|
250−260
+510%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−500%
|
180−190
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−483%
|
140−150
+483%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−515%
|
80−85
+515%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−500%
|
150−160
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−516%
|
450−500
+516%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−486%
|
170−180
+486%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−515%
|
80−85
+515%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−466%
|
300−310
+466%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−519%
|
130−140
+519%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−500%
|
180−190
+500%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−500%
|
150−160
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−516%
|
450−500
+516%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−510%
|
250−260
+510%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−477%
|
300−310
+477%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−500%
|
240−250
+500%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−500%
|
450−500
+500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−515%
|
80−85
+515%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−511%
|
110−120
+511%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−518%
|
210−220
+518%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−483%
|
140−150
+483%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
This is how Quadro M620 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 515% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.61 | 40.94 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 12 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 70 Watt |
Quadro M620 has 133.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 519.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M620 is a mobile workstation graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
