Quadro P620 vs FirePro S7150
Quadro P620
Popular choices:
FirePro S7150
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 P620 is positioned at rank 74 and the FirePro S7150 is on rank 315, 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 Quadro P620
Performance Per Dollar FirePro S7150
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 | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+838%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($48) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($459) |
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 P620 and FirePro S7150
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P620 scores 3,698 and the FirePro S7150 reaches 3,770 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P620 is built on Pascal while the FirePro S7150 uses GCN 3.0, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 512 (Quadro P620) vs 2,048 (FirePro S7150). Raw compute: 1.478 TFLOPS (Quadro P620) vs 3.768 TFLOPS (FirePro S7150).
| Feature | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,698 | 3,770+2% |
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 | 2048+300% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.478 TFLOPS | 3.768 TFLOPS+155% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 128+300% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 512 KB+167% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 P620 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro S7150 has 4 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: 1 MB (Quadro P620) vs 0.5 MB (FirePro S7150) — the Quadro P620 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FL12_1) (Quadro P620) vs 12 (FirePro S7150). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (FL12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Pascal) (Quadro P620) vs VCE 3.0 (FirePro S7150). Decoder: NVDEC vs UVD 5.0. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (Quadro P620) vs H.264,H.265 (FirePro S7150).
| Feature | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Pascal) | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC | UVD 5.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P620 draws 40W versus the FirePro S7150's 150W — a 115.8% difference. The Quadro P620 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro P620) vs 350W (FirePro S7150). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 145mm vs 241mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 40W-73% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 145mm | 241mm |
| Height | 69mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 92.5+269% | 25.1 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P620 launched at $170 MSRP and currently averages $48, while the FirePro S7150 launched at $2399 and now averages $459. The Quadro P620 costs 89.5% less ($411 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 77.0 (Quadro P620) vs 8.2 (FirePro S7150) — the Quadro P620 offers 839% better value. The Quadro P620 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2016).
| Feature | Quadro P620 | FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $170-93% | $2399 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $48-90% | $459 |
| Performance per Dollar | 77.0+839% | 8.2 |
| Codename | GP107 | Tonga |
| Release | February 1 2018 | February 1 2016 |
| Ranking | #524 | #521 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P620 and FirePro S7150
