Quadro 600 vs Quadro M620

Place in the ranking	544	1015
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.15
Power efficiency	16.54	2.37
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM107	GF108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	13 December 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$179

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	640 MHz
Boost clock speed	977 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.26	10.24
Floating-point processing power	1 TFLOPS	0.2458 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	25.6 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	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Display Port	1.2	no data

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	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	2.1

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 M620 7.21
+422%

Quadro 600 1.38

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 2772
+422%

Quadro 600 531

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro M620 8005
+281%

Quadro 600 2102

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	29 +480%	5−6 −480%
4K	12 +500%	2−3 −500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	35.80
4K	no data	89.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Elden Ring	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +480%	5−6 −480%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Valorant	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Dota 2	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Elden Ring	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Fortnite	40−45 +438%	8−9 −438%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +480%	5−6 −480%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	38 +443%	7−8 −443%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%
Valorant	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
World of Tanks	110−120 +429%	21−24 −429%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Dota 2	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +480%	5−6 −480%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +480%	10−11 −480%
Valorant	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Elden Ring	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +457%	7−8 −457%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
World of Tanks	50−55 +478%	9−10 −478%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Valorant	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Elden Ring	4−5	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16 +433%	3−4 −433%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Fortnite	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Valorant	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

This is how Quadro M620 and Quadro 600 compete in popular games:

Quadro M620 is 480% faster in 1080p
Quadro M620 is 500% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.21	1.38
Recency	11 January 2017	13 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	40 Watt

Quadro M620 has a 422.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M620 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro 600 is a workstation one.

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