RTX A1000 Mobile vs Quadro K620

Place in the ranking	599	224
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.71	no data
Power efficiency	8.88	28.55
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GM107	GA107
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	22 July 2014 (10 years ago)	30 March 2022 (2 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 cores	384	2048
Core clock speed	1058 MHz	630 MHz
Boost clock speed	1124 MHz	1140 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	41 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.98	72.96
Floating-point processing power	0.8632 TFLOPS	4.669 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	24	64
Tensor Cores	no data	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	16

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 size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	160 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	128 Bit	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 29 GB/s	176.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no 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.

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.0	8.6

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

RTX A1000 Mobile 24.83
+329%

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

RTX A1000 Mobile 9545
+329%

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	14−16 −379%	67 +379%
1440p	6−7 −350%	27 +350%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	13.56	no data
1440p	31.65	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	66 +0%	66 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	61 +0%	61 +0%
Elden Ring	60 +0%	60 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	50 +0%	50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +0%	25 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	109 +0%	109 +0%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Valorant	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	42 +0%	42 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18 +0%	18 +0%
Dota 2	98 +0%	98 +0%
Elden Ring	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Far Cry 5	74 +0%	74 +0%
Fortnite	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	87 +0%	87 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	91 +0%	91 +0%
Metro Exodus	16 +0%	16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Valorant	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
World of Tanks	250−260 +0%	250−260 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35 +0%	35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +0%	15 +0%
Dota 2	132 +0%	132 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	76 +0%	76 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Valorant	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Elden Ring	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
World of Tanks	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Elden Ring	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

This is how Quadro K620 and RTX A1000 Mobile compete in popular games:

RTX A1000 Mobile is 379% faster in 1080p
RTX A1000 Mobile is 350% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.79	24.83
Recency	22 July 2014	30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	41 Watt	60 Watt

Quadro K620 has 46.3% lower power consumption.

RTX A1000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 328.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A1000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K620 is a workstation card while RTX A1000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

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