CPU
GPU
Quadro K620M
Popular choices:
FireStream 9250
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 Quadro K620M is positioned at rank 101 and the FireStream 9250 is on rank 340, so the Quadro K620M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K620M
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9250
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro K620M is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The Quadro K620M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FireStream 9250 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FireStream 9250 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K620M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K620M | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / TeraScale (2005−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the FireStream 9250 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 Quadro K620M and FireStream 9250
Quadro K620M
The Quadro K620M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,159 points.
FireStream 9250
The FireStream 9250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 16 2008. It features the TeraScale architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,165 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K620M scores 1,159 and the FireStream 9250 reaches 1,165 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K620M is built on Maxwell while the FireStream 9250 uses TeraScale, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K620M) vs 800 (FireStream 9250). Raw compute: 0.8632 TFLOPS (Quadro K620M) vs 1 TFLOPS (FireStream 9250).
| Feature | Quadro K620M | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,159 | 1,165 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | TeraScale |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 800+108% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS+16% |
| ROPs | 8 | 16+100% |
| TMUs | 16 | 40+150% |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 160 KB+25% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K620M | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro K620M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the FireStream 9250 has 1 GB. The Quadro K620M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Quadro K620M) vs 0.25 MB (FireStream 9250) — the Quadro K620M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K620M | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+300% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K620M draws 30W versus the FireStream 9250's 150W — a 133.3% difference. The Quadro K620M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K620M) vs 350W (FireStream 9250). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K620M | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-80% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 234mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | Unknown |
| Perf/Watt | 38.6+395% | 7.8 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K620M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro K620M | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $49 |
| Codename | GM108 | RV770 |
| Release | March 1 2015 | June 16 2008 |
| Ranking | #842 | #840 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K620M and FireStream 9250
