GeForce 9600 GSO vs Quadro M620

Place in the ranking	540	1134
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.09
Power efficiency	16.78	0.71
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM107	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	28 April 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$49.99

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	512	96
Core clock speed	756 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	977 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	31.26	26.40
Floating-point processing power	1 TFLOPS	0.264 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	12
TMUs	32	48

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	large	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	2-way

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	384 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	38.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Display Port	1.2	no data
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	+

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 M620 7.22
+749%

9600 GSO 0.85

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 M620 2786
+752%

9600 GSO 327

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	25 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
4K	10 +900%	1−2 −900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	25.00
4K	no data	49.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+1100%

1−2

−1100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +860%	5−6 −860%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +800%	6−7 −800%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Far Cry New Dawn	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +860%	5−6 −860%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	62 +786%	7−8 −786%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +800%	6−7 −800%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +860%	5−6 −860%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +800%	6−7 −800%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22
+900%

2−3

−900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Hitman 3	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Metro Exodus	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +820%	5−6 −820%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+1100%

1−2

−1100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6	0−1
Hitman 3	3−4	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

0−1

This is how Quadro M620 and 9600 GSO compete in popular games:

Quadro M620 is 1150% faster in 1080p
Quadro M620 is 900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.22	0.85
Recency	11 January 2017	28 April 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	384 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	105 Watt

Quadro M620 has a 749.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GSO in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M620 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 9600 GSO is a desktop one.

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