Quadro M620 vs Radeon PRO W7600

Place in the ranking	130	544
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	73.52	no data
Power efficiency	19.61	16.54
Architecture	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	Navi 33	GM107
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	3 August 2023 (1 year ago)	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	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	2048	512
Core clock speed	no data	756 MHz
Boost clock speed	2440 MHz	977 MHz
Number of transistors	13,300 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	312.3	31.26
Floating-point processing power	no data	1 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	128	32

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	large
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	18 GB/s	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	80 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	4x DisplayPort 2.1	No outputs
Display Port	no data	1.2

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 Ultimate (12_2)	12
Shader Model	6.7	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.1.126
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.

PRO W7600 37.04
+414%

Quadro M620 7.21

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.

PRO W7600 14240
+414%

Quadro M620 2772

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	140−150 +383%	29 −383%
4K	60−65 +400%	12 −400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.28	no data
4K	9.98	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Elden Ring	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	38 +0%	38 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Valorant	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Elden Ring	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Fortnite	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

This is how PRO W7600 and Quadro M620 compete in popular games:

PRO W7600 is 383% faster in 1080p
PRO W7600 is 400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	37.04	7.21
Recency	3 August 2023	11 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	130 Watt	30 Watt

PRO W7600 has a 413.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro M620, on the other hand, has 333.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation card while Quadro M620 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.