Quadro P620 vs GeForce GT 425M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 425M with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.

GT 425M
2010
1 GB DDR3, 23 Watt
1.35

P620 outperforms GT 425M by a whopping 599% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1018468
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.0916.45
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGF108GP107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date3 September 2010 (14 years ago)1 February 2018 (6 years ago)

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 cores96512
Core clock speed560 MHz1177 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1443 MHz
Number of transistors585 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate8.96046.18
Floating-point processing power0.215 TFLOPS1.478 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs1632

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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.

GT 425M 1.35
Quadro P620 9.44
+599%

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.

GT 425M 522
Quadro P620 3640
+597%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 425M 753
Quadro P620 5909
+685%

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.

GT 425M 3381
Quadro P620 25105
+643%

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.

GT 425M 1875
Quadro P620 12070
+544%

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:

900p11
−582%
75−80
+582%
Full HD17
−159%
44
+159%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−283%
21−24
+283%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−375%
18−20
+375%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1000%
21−24
+1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2000%
60−65
+2000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−271%
50−55
+271%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−588%
55
+588%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−84.8%
60−65
+84.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−283%
21−24
+283%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−375%
18−20
+375%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1000%
21−24
+1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2000%
60−65
+2000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−271%
50−55
+271%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−288%
30−35
+288%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−136%
24−27
+136%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−84.8%
60−65
+84.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−283%
21−24
+283%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−375%
18−20
+375%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1000%
21−24
+1000%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2000%
60−65
+2000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−271%
50−55
+271%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−288%
30−35
+288%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−54.5%
17
+54.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−84.8%
60−65
+84.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−600%
14−16
+600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 9−10
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%
Hitman 3 7−8
−85.7%
12−14
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−300%
20−22
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−900%
60−65
+900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 4−5
Far Cry 5 0−1 5−6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 28
+0%
28
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GT 425M and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P620 is 582% faster in 900p
  • Quadro P620 is 159% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P620 is 2000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P620 is ahead in 49 tests (71%)
  • there's a draw in 20 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 9.44
Recency 3 September 2010 1 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 40 Watt

GT 425M has 73.9% lower power consumption.

Quadro P620, on the other hand, has a 599.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 425M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 425M 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.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M
GeForce GT 425M
NVIDIA Quadro P620
Quadro P620

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.4 58 votes

Rate GeForce GT 425M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 612 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.