Quadro FX 380 vs Quadro K620

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K620 and Quadro FX 380, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K620
2014
2 GB 128-bit, 41 Watt
5.79
+1312%

K620 outperforms FX 380 by a whopping 1312% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5971253
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.610.02
Power efficiency8.820.83
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGM107G96
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$189.89 $129

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K620 has 12950% better value for money than FX 380.

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 cores38416
Core clock speed1058 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt34 Watt
Texture fill rate26.983.600
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPS0.0352 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs248

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 2.0 x16
Length160 mm198 mm
Width1" (2.5 cm)1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 29 GB/s22.4 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 DisplayPort2x DVI
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.

DirectX1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA5.01.1

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 K620 5.79
+1312%
FX 380 0.41

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 2232
+1322%
FX 380 157

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 5.79 0.41
Recency 22 July 2014 30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 34 Watt

Quadro K620 has a 1312.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 380, on the other hand, has 20.6% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380 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 Quadro FX 380
Quadro FX 380

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.


3.7 634 votes

Rate Quadro K620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 15 votes

Rate Quadro FX 380 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.