GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P620 [22

您所在的位置：网站首页 › 丽台 1650 › GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P620 [22

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P620 [22

2024-07-10 11:20| 来源: 网络整理| 查看: 265

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P620 Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P620 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P62020192 GB GDDR5, 25 Watt 9.41 GTX 165020194 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt 20.40 +117% GTX 1650 GTX 1060 6 GB RTX 3060 RTX 4060 RTX 4070 SUPER RTX 4080 SUPER RTX 4090 RX 580 RX 5700 Arc A580 RX 7600 XT RX 7800 XT RX 7900 XTX

GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by a whopping 117% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents Primary details Cost-effectiveness evaluation Detailed specifications Form factor & compatibility VRAM capacity and type Connectivity and outputs API compatibility Performance benchmarks In-game performance breakdown Pros & cons summary Vote for your favorite Comparisons with similar GPUs Community ratings Questions & comments Quadro P620 GTX 1650 Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking438253Place by popularitynot in top-1002Cost-effectiveness evaluation21.2918.87ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2021)GPU code nameGP107TU117Market segmentWorkstationDesktopRelease date27 May 2019 (5 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)Launch price (MSRP)no data$149 Current price$170 $185 (1.2x MSRP) Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P620 has 13% better value for money than GTX 1650.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores512896Core clock speed1177 MHz1485 MHzBoost clock speed1442 MHz1665 MHzNumber of transistors3,300 million4,700 millionManufacturing process technology14 nm12 nmPower consumption (TDP)25 Watt75 WattTexture fill rate43.3393.24Floating-point performance1,490 gflopsno data 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16Length145 mm229 mmWidth1-slot2-slotSupplementary power connectorsNoneNone 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GBMemory bus width128 Bit128 BitMemory clock speed6000 MHz8000 MHzMemory bandwidth80.13 GB/s128.0 GB/sShared 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortHDMIno data+ API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)Shader Model6.46.5OpenGL4.64.6OpenCL1.21.2Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131CUDA6.17.5 Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 P620 9.41 GTX 1650 20.40 +117%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 117% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro P620 3634 GTX 1650 7876 +117%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 117% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Quadro P620 5909 GTX 1650 13645 +131%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 131% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Quadro P620 25105 GTX 1650 44694 +78%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 78% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Quadro P620 4673 GTX 1650 9203 +97%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 97% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Quadro P620 30410 GTX 1650 50549 +66.2%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 66% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

Quadro P620 11782 GTX 1650 39349 +234%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 234% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

Quadro P620 310112 GTX 1650 373333 +20.4%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 20% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Quadro P620 11228 GTX 1650 36325 +224%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 224% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Benchmark coverage: 4%

Quadro P620 11727 GTX 1650 39941 +241%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 241% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 41 GTX 1650 91 +123%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 123% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 79 +73.3% GTX 1650 45

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 73% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 50 +686% GTX 1650 6

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 686% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 54 +24.3% GTX 1650 44

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 24% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 59 +70.4% GTX 1650 35

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 70% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 15 GTX 1650 21 +47.6%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 48% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 26 GTX 1650 51 +98.4%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 98% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

Quadro P620 4 GTX 1650 5 +20.5%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P620 41 GTX 1650 90 +120%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Quadro P620 by 120% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P620 55 +26% GTX 1650 43

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 26% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P620 78 +71.5% GTX 1650 46

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 71% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P620 51 +677% GTX 1650 7

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 677% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Quadro P620 60 +92.3% GTX 1650 31

Quadro P620 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 92% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

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 HD55 −25.5% 69 +25.5% 1440p16−18 −131% 37 +131% 4K10−12 −120% 22 +120% FPS performance in popular games

Full HDLow Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 −113% 30−35 +113%

Full HDMedium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 −179% 53 +179% Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16 −236% 47 +236% Battlefield 5 27−30 −172% 79 +172% Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 −174% 52 +174% Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 −113% 30−35 +113% Far Cry 5 21−24 −191% 64 +191% Far Cry New Dawn 24−27 −208% 80 +208% Forza Horizon 4 45−50 −95.7% 90 +95.7% Hitman 3 18−20 −172% 49 +172% Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45 −188% 115 +188% Metro Exodus 35 −189% 101 +189% Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 −196% 77 +196% Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 −224% 94 +224% Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35 −64.7% 56 +64.7%

Full HDHigh Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 −147% 47 +147% Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16 −150% 35 +150% Battlefield 5 27−30 −148% 72 +148% Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 −142% 46 +142% Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 −113% 30−35 +113% Far Cry 5 21−24 −136% 52 +136% Far Cry New Dawn 24−27 −115% 56 +115% Forza Horizon 4 45−50 −337% 201 +337% Hitman 3 18−20 −111% 38 +111% Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45 −550% 260 +550% Metro Exodus 13 −400% 65 +400% Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 −142% 63 +142% Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 −155% 74 +155% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32 −131% 74 +131% Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35 −506% 206 +506%

Full HDUltra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 −31.6% 25 +31.6% Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16 +7.7% 13 −7.7% Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 +138% 8 −138% Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 −113% 30−35 +113% Far Cry 5 21−24 −77.3% 39 +77.3% Forza Horizon 4 45−50 −41.3% 65 +41.3% Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45 −50% 60 +50% Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30 −114% 62 +114% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17 −147% 42 +147% Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35 +61.9% 21 −61.9%

Full HDEpic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 −108% 54 +108%

1440pHigh Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 −133% 42 +133% Far Cry New Dawn 14−16 −233% 50 +233%

1440pUltra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 −100% 18 +100% Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 −160% 13 +160% Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12 −191% 32 +191% Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 −200% 12−14 +200% Far Cry 5 14−16 −160% 39 +160% Forza Horizon 4 16−18 −171% 46 +171% Hitman 3 12−14 −108% 27 +108% Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22 −115% 43 +115% Metro Exodus 12−14 −215% 41 +215% Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12 −309% 45 +309% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 −167% 24−27 +167% Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6 −180% 14 +180%

1440pEpic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18 −119% 35 +119%

4KHigh Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10 −122% 20 +122% Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 −143% 17 +143% Hitman 3 5−6 −160% 13 +160% Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11 −130% 21−24 +130% Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6 −160% 13 +160% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 −271% 26 +271%

4KUltra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 −160% 13 +160% Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 −25% 5 +25% Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 −175% 10−12 +175% Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 −300% 4−5 +300% Far Cry 5 5−6 −140% 12 +140% Forza Horizon 4 12−14 −150% 30 +150% Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11 −130% 23 +130% Metro Exodus 10−11 −110% 21 +110% Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 −167% 8 +167%

4KEpic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 −88.9% 17 +88.9%

This is how Quadro P620 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 25% faster in 1080pGTX 1650 is 131% faster in 1440pGTX 1650 is 120% faster in 4K

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P620 is 138% faster.in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P620 is ahead in 3 tests (4%)GTX 1650 is ahead in 69 tests (96%) Pros & cons summary Performance score 9.41 20.40 Recency 27 May 2019 23 April 2019 Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 75 Watt

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P620 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop 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.

Quadro P620 GeForce GTX 1650 Like Like Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro P620 vs FirePro W4100 GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P2000 Quadro P620 vs FirePro W2100 Quadro P620 vs GeForce MX230 Quadro P620 vs GeForce MX250 Quadro P620 vs GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile Quadro P620 vs Radeon RX 580 2048SP Quadro P620 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q Quadro P620 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Quadro P620 vs Radeon RX 560 XT Quadro P620 vs Radeon Pro WX 3200 Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.5 562 votes

Rate Quadro P620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

3.7 21546 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.

Graphics settings Screen resolution FPS

【本文地址】

公司简介

联系我们