Quadro P620 vs Quadro K4000

Place in the ranking	552	468
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.60	no data
Power efficiency	6.09	16.35
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GK106	GP107
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	1 March 2013 (11 years ago)	1 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,269	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	768	512
Core clock speed	810 MHz	1177 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1443 MHz
Number of transistors	2,540 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	51.84	46.18
Floating-point processing power	1.244 TFLOPS	1.478 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	16
TMUs	64	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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	145 mm
Width	1-slot	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1404 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	134.8 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

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	3.0	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.

Quadro K4000 7.08

Quadro P620 9.50
+34.2%

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.

Quadro K4000 2722

Quadro P620 3652
+34.2%

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.

Quadro K4000 6673

Quadro P620 12088
+81.1%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro K4000 6875

Quadro P620 10916
+58.8%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro K4000 5210

Quadro P620 11727
+125%

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

35−40

−37.1%

48
+37.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

36.26

no 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 Quadro K4000 and Quadro P620 compete in popular games:

Quadro P620 is 37% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.08	9.50
Recency	1 March 2013	1 February 2018
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	80 Watt	40 Watt

Quadro K4000 has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro P620, on the other hand, has a 34.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000 in performance tests.

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