Quadro P620 vs GeForce 9800M GTX

Place in the ranking	1069	468
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	no data
Power efficiency	1.08	16.35
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	G92	GP107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	15 July 2008 (16 years ago)	1 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$328.50	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 cores	112	512
CUDA cores per GPU	112	no data
Core clock speed	500 MHz	1177 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1443 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	28.00	46.18
Floating-point processing power	0.28 TFLOPS	1.478 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	420	no data
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	56	32

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.2 GB/s	96.13 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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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.

9800M GTX 1.18

Quadro P620 9.50
+705%

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.

9800M GTX 454

Quadro P620 3652
+704%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

9800M GTX 4825

Quadro P620 25105
+420%

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

5−6

−860%

48
+860%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

65.70

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Elden Ring	0−1	27−30

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −3000%	30−35 +3000%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −375%	35−40 +375%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −317%	24−27 +317%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −3000%	30−35 +3000%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Dota 2	0−1	30
Elden Ring	0−1	27−30
Far Cry 5	10−11 −540%	64 +540%
Fortnite	5−6 −1020%	55−60 +1020%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −375%	35−40 +375%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −3300%	30−35 +3300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −862%	125 +862%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −317%	24−27 +317%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −314%	27−30 +314%
World of Tanks	24−27 −431%	130−140 +431%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −3000%	30−35 +3000%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Dota 2	0−1	83
Far Cry 5	10−11 −290%	35−40 +290%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −375%	35−40 +375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −469%	70−75 +469%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −557%	45−50 +557%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	8−9
World of Tanks	6−7 −1033%	65−70 +1033%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −300%	20−22 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Valorant	6−7 −300%	24−27 +300%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −833%	27−30 +833%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	6−7
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Dota 2	14−16 −33.3%	20−22 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	0−1	10−12
Valorant	1−2 −800%	9−10 +800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Metro Exodus	6 +0%	6 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

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%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Elden Ring	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Fortnite	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

This is how 9800M GTX and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

Quadro P620 is 860% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P620 is 3300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P620 is ahead in 39 tests (70%)
there's a draw in 17 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.18	9.50
Recency	15 July 2008	1 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt

Quadro P620 has a 705.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTX in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTX is a notebook card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.

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