Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Quadro M620

Place in the ranking	544	269
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	16.54	23.83
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM107	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)

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	1024
Core clock speed	756 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	977 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.26	114.2
Floating-point processing power	1 TFLOPS	3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	64

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	medium sized
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	128.0 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	No outputs
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 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	5.0	7.5

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

T2000 Mobile 20.77
+188%

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

T2000 Mobile 7985
+188%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Quadro M620 3801

T2000 Mobile 13524
+256%

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 −176%	80−85 +176%
4K	12 −150%	30−35 +150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Elden Ring	20−22 −230%	65−70 +230%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −187%	65−70 +187%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −203%	85−90 +203%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −195%	55−60 +195%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −124%	45−50 +124%
Valorant	24−27 −250%	80−85 +250%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −187%	65−70 +187%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Dota 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Elden Ring	20−22 −230%	65−70 +230%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −113%	65−70 +113%
Fortnite	40−45 −153%	100−110 +153%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −203%	85−90 +203%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −195%	55−60 +195%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	38 −263%	130−140 +263%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −124%	45−50 +124%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −200%	65−70 +200%
Valorant	24−27 −250%	80−85 +250%
World of Tanks	110−120 −111%	230−240 +111%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −187%	65−70 +187%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −147%	35−40 +147%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Dota 2	24−27 −192%	70−75 +192%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −113%	65−70 +113%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −203%	85−90 +203%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −134%	130−140 +134%
Valorant	24−27 −250%	80−85 +250%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 −313%	30−35 +313%
Elden Ring	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 −325%	30−35 +325%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −341%	170−180 +341%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −217%	18−20 +217%
World of Tanks	50−55 −164%	140−150 +164%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −223%	40−45 +223%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −240%	16−18 +240%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −280%	55−60 +280%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −286%	50−55 +286%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −327%	45−50 +327%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −222%	27−30 +222%
Valorant	18−20 −184%	50−55 +184%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Dota 2	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%
Elden Ring	4−5 −275%	14−16 +275%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −400%	14−16 +400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16 −288%	60−65 +288%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Dota 2	18−20 −94.4%	35−40 +94.4%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −200%	27−30 +200%
Fortnite	7−8 −257%	24−27 +257%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −288%	30−35 +288%
Valorant	7−8 −257%	24−27 +257%

This is how Quadro M620 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is 176% faster in 1080p
T2000 Mobile is 150% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 1600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, T2000 Mobile surpassed Quadro M620 in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.21	20.77
Recency	11 January 2017	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	60 Watt

Quadro M620 has 100% lower power consumption.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 188.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M620 in performance tests.

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