FirePro S7150 vs Quadro P620
FirePro S7150
Popular choices:
Quadro P620
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro S7150 is positioned at rank 315 and the Quadro P620 is on rank 74, so the Quadro P620 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro S7150
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P620
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro P620 uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro P620 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro S7150 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro S7150 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro P620.
| Insight | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P620 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $48 versus $459 for the FirePro S7150, it costs 90% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 838% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+838%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($459) | ✅More affordable ($48) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro S7150 and Quadro P620
FirePro S7150
The FirePro S7150 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in February 1 2016. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 920 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,770 points. Launch price was $2,399.
Quadro P620
The Quadro P620 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 1 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1177 MHz to 1443 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,698 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro S7150 scores 3,770 and the Quadro P620 reaches 3,698 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro S7150 is built on GCN 3.0 while the Quadro P620 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (FirePro S7150) vs 512 (Quadro P620). Raw compute: 3.768 TFLOPS (FirePro S7150) vs 1.478 TFLOPS (Quadro P620).
| Feature | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,770+2% | 3,698 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+300% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.768 TFLOPS+155% | 1.478 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128+300% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB+167% | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro S7150 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P620 has 2 GB. The FirePro S7150 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (FirePro S7150) vs 1 MB (Quadro P620) — the Quadro P620 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FirePro S7150) vs 12 (FL12_1) (Quadro P620). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.
| Feature | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (FL12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 0 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (FirePro S7150) vs NVENC (Pascal) (Quadro P620). Decoder: UVD 5.0 vs NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (FirePro S7150) vs H.264,HEVC (Quadro P620).
| Feature | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.0 | NVENC (Pascal) |
| Decoder | UVD 5.0 | NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 | H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro S7150 draws 150W versus the Quadro P620's 40W — a 115.8% difference. The Quadro P620 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro S7150) vs 350W (Quadro P620). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 241mm vs 145mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 40W-73% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | 145mm |
| Height | 111mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 25.1 | 92.5+269% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro S7150 launched at $2399 MSRP and currently averages $459, while the Quadro P620 launched at $170 and now averages $48. The Quadro P620 costs 89.5% less ($411 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 8.2 (FirePro S7150) vs 77.0 (Quadro P620) — the Quadro P620 offers 839% better value. The Quadro P620 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2016).
| Feature | FirePro S7150 | Quadro P620 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2399 | $170-93% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $459 | $48-90% |
| Performance per Dollar | 8.2 | 77.0+839% |
| Codename | Tonga | GP107 |
| Release | February 1 2016 | February 1 2018 |
| Ranking | #521 | #524 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro S7150 and Quadro P620
