GRID K260Q vs Quadro K620

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K620 and GRID K260Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K620
2014
2 GB 128-bit, 41 Watt
5.78

GRID K260Q outperforms K620 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking593523
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.370.86
Power efficiency8.952.37
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM107GK104
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)28 June 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$189.89 $937

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K620 has 176% better value for money than GRID K260Q.

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 cores3841536
Core clock speed1058 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate26.9895.36
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPS2.289 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs24128

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 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length160 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)IGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 type128 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 29 GB/s160.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data

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.

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA5.03.0

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 5.78
GRID K260Q 7.64
+32.2%

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 K620 2231
GRID K260Q 2949
+32.2%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.78 7.64
Recency 22 July 2014 28 June 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro K620 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 448.8% lower power consumption.

GRID K260Q, on the other hand, has a 32.2% higher aggregate performance score.

The GRID K260Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.


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 Quadro K620
Quadro K620
NVIDIA GRID K260Q
GRID K260Q

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.


3.7 604 votes

Rate Quadro K620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K260Q 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.