Quadro P620 vs Quadro FX 350M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 350M with Quadro P620, including specs and performance data.

FX 350M
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 15 Watt
0.11

P620 outperforms FX 350M by a whopping 8545% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1453478
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.5016.30
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameG72GP107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date13 March 2006 (18 years ago)1 February 2018 (7 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 cores7512
Core clock speed450 MHz1177 MHz
Boost clock speed450 MHz1443 MHz
Number of transistors112 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate1.80046.18
Floating-point processing powerno data1.478 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs432

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 1.0 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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount256 MB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed450 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.4
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
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.

FX 350M 0.11
Quadro P620 9.51
+8545%

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.

FX 350M 44
Quadro P620 3656
+8209%

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 HD0−147

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−2100%
21−24
+2100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−2100%
21−24
+2100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Valorant 24−27
−248%
85−90
+248%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−2100%
21−24
+2100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−11
−1270%
130−140
+1270%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Dota 2 8−9
−1025%
90
+1025%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−700%
32
+700%
Valorant 24−27
−248%
85−90
+248%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Dota 2 8−9
−938%
83
+938%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−325%
17
+325%
Valorant 24−27
−248%
85−90
+248%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 21−24
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−33.3%
20−22
+33.3%
Valorant 1−2
−4500%
45−50
+4500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 113
+0%
113
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 42
+0%
42
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 17
+0%
17
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 29
+0%
29
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

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

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P620 is 4500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P620 is ahead in 32 tests (48%)
  • there's a draw in 34 tests (52%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.11 9.51
Recency 13 March 2006 1 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 40 Watt

FX 350M has 166.7% lower power consumption.

Quadro P620, on the other hand, has a 8545.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 350M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro P620 is a workstation one.

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 Quadro FX 350M
Quadro FX 350M
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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro FX 350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 641 vote

Rate Quadro P620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 350M or Quadro P620, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.