Radeon HD 6950M vs Quadro K620

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K620 with Radeon HD 6950M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K620
2014
2 GB 128-bit, 41 Watt
5.79
+62.2%

K620 outperforms HD 6950M by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking596721
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.61no data
Power efficiency8.834.90
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGM107Blackcomb
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)4 January 2011 (13 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 cores384960
Core clock speed1058 MHz580 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million1,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate26.9827.84
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPS1.114 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2448

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 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 29 GB/s115.2 GB/s
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 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.

DirectX1211.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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 7−8
+0%
7−8
+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 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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 7−8
+0%
7−8
+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 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
+0%
21−24
+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 2−3
+0%
2−3
+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 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.79 3.57
Recency 22 July 2014 4 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro K620 has a 62.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 22% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K620 is a workstation card while Radeon HD 6950M 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
AMD Radeon HD 6950M
Radeon HD 6950M

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
5 1 vote

Rate Radeon HD 6950M 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.