Quadro P620 vs FirePro W600

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W600 and Quadro P620, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FirePro W600
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.35

P620 outperforms W600 by a whopping 118% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking677468
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.48no data
Power efficiency3.9916.35
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameCape VerdeGP107
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date13 June 2012 (12 years ago)1 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores512512
Core clock speed750 MHz1177 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1443 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate24.0046.18
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS1.478 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length163 mm145 mm
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s96.13 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors6x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-6.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FirePro W600 4.35
Quadro P620 9.50
+118%

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.

FirePro W600 1671
Quadro P620 3652
+119%

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.

FirePro W600 6185
Quadro P620 12088
+95.4%

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 HD21−24
−129%
48
+129%

Cost per frame, $

1080p28.52no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 30
+0%
30
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 6
+0%
6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 125
+0%
125
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Dota 2 83
+0%
83
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Elden Ring 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how FirePro W600 and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P620 is 129% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.35 9.50
Recency 13 June 2012 1 February 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 40 Watt

Quadro P620 has a 118.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W600 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro W600
FirePro W600
NVIDIA Quadro P620
Quadro P620

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 15 votes

Rate FirePro W600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 637 votes

Rate Quadro P620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.