Arc A380 vs Quadro K620

Place in the ranking	599	334
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.71	43.70
Power efficiency	8.88	14.90
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code name	GM107	DG2-128
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	22 July 2014 (10 years ago)	14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$189.89	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A380 has 1513% better value for money than Quadro K620.

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	384	1024
Core clock speed	1058 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1124 MHz	2050 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	41 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.98	131.2
Floating-point processing power	0.8632 TFLOPS	4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	24	64
Tensor Cores	no data	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	8

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 4.0 x8
Length	160 mm	222 mm
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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	128 Bit	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 29 GB/s	186.0 GB/s

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, 1x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.0	-

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 K620 5.79

Arc A380 16.20
+180%

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 K620 2227

Arc A380 6229
+180%

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

16−18

−194%

47
+194%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

11.87

−274%

3.17
+274%

Arc A380 has 274% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	47 +0%	47 +0%
Elden Ring	45 +0%	45 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	37 +0%	37 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	94 +0%	94 +0%
Metro Exodus	63 +0%	63 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	31 +0%	31 +0%
Dota 2	33 +0%	33 +0%
Elden Ring	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Far Cry 5	64 +0%	64 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +0%	80 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	33 +0%	33 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27 +0%	27 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	61 +0%	61 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Elden Ring	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how Quadro K620 and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

Arc A380 is 194% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.79	16.20
Recency	22 July 2014	14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	41 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro K620 has 82.9% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 179.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K620 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A380 is a desktop one.

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