GeForce GTX 280M SLI vs Quadro K620

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K620 with GeForce GTX 280M SLI, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K620
2014
2 GB 128-bit, 41 Watt
5.78
+68.5%

K620 outperforms GTX 280M SLI by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking594726
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.57no data
Power efficiency8.961.59
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameGM107N10E-GTX
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)2 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$189.89 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 cores384256
Core clock speed1058 MHz585 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million1508 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate26.98no data
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs24no data

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length160 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
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 BitGDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz950 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 29 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data-

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 data
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.

DirectX1210
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA5.0+

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.78 3.43
Recency 22 July 2014 2 March 2009
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 150 Watt

Quadro K620 has a 68.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 265.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K620 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 280M SLI is a notebook 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 Quadro K620
Quadro K620
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI
GeForce GTX 280M SLI

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.


3.7 627 votes

Rate Quadro K620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 280M SLI 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.