AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database positions the NVIDIA Quadro K620 as the stronger performer of the two workstation GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 6282 sits above the AMD FirePro M4000's 5537, a difference of roughly 13.5 percent. The only direct head-to-head measurement, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the Quadro K620 scoring 6693 against 5537, a 20.9 percent advantage. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Quadro K620 lands in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile.

For users choosing between these two, the Quadro K620 is the clear pick for compute workloads and OpenCL-based applications. Its higher pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s also suggests better fill-rate-bound performance. The FirePro M4000 does have advantages in memory bandwidth and raw shader count, but the recorded benchmark scores do not translate those specs into a performance win. The data shows a single victory for the Quadro K620 and none for the FirePro M4000.

The FirePro M4000 makes sense only in scenarios where its mobile MXM form factor and lower 33 W TDP are mandatory. It is a portable-device-oriented part, while the Quadro K620 is a single-slot desktop card. If the system requires an MXM-A module, the FirePro M4000 is the only option of the two. Otherwise, the Quadro K620 outperforms it in every recorded benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 records an average benchmark score of 6282, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The Quadro K620 leads by approximately 13.5 percent.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K620 scores 6693, and the FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The delta is 20.9 percent in favor of the Quadro K620.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU according to the database?

A: For the Quadro K620, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both within 0.2 percent, plus the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at -0.7 percent and AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at -0.8 percent. For the FirePro M4000, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 0.5 percent, GeForce GTX 765M at 0.7 percent, AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 1 percent, and NVIDIA Quadro M500M at -1.2 percent.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, compared to 384 on the NVIDIA Quadro K620. Despite this advantage, the FirePro M4000 still loses the only head-to-head benchmark.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: 1.4 for the Quadro K620 versus 1.2.170 for the FirePro M4000.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip built on the Maxwell architecture, produced by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 1,870 million transistors across a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip based on GCN 1.0, also fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die, giving a density of 12.2M per mm².

The shading resources differ significantly. The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has a third more shading units and 33 percent more TMUs, but the NVIDIA part compensates with higher clock speeds, a point examined in the specification section.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The Quadro K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5. Both run on a 128-bit bus, but the memory technology difference drives a large bandwidth gap: 28.80 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 64.00 GB/s for AMD. The FirePro M4000 has more than double the memory bandwidth.

The compute capabilities show another split. The Quadro K620 delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the FirePro M4000 delivers 691.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is ahead despite fewer shaders, a result of its higher clocks. Neither GPU lists FP16 performance in the database.

API support differs in the details. Both support OpenGL 4.6. DirectX support is nearly identical, with the Quadro K620 at 12 (11_0) and the FirePro M4000 at 12 (11_1). Vulkan support is notably higher on the NVIDIA side: version 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear differences. The Quadro K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. Memory clocks differ as well: the Quadro K620 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the FirePro M4000 runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity differs by a factor of two. The Quadro K620 has 2 GB, the FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB. Memory type also differs: DDR3 versus GDDR5. The bus width is identical at 128 bit for both, but bandwidth is not: 28.80 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Pixel and texture rates favor different cards. The Quadro K620 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s and 26.98 GTexel/s. The FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. NVIDIA leads in both fill-rate metrics despite the AMD card having more TMUs, again due to clock speed.

Power and form factor are major differentiators. The Quadro K620 has a TDP of 45 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU. It measures 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The FirePro M4000 has a lower 33 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, requires no power connectors, has no suggested PSU listed, and has no dimensions recorded. Its bus interface is MXM-A (3.0), while the Quadro K620 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs also differ. The Quadro K620 offers 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The FirePro M4000's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile nature.

Release dates are far apart. The Quadro K620 launched on 2014-07-21, while the FirePro M4000 launched on 2012-06-26. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro K620's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The FirePro M4000's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693, and the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The delta is 20.9 percent, a substantial margin. This single test tells the story: despite the FirePro M4000's higher shader count and more than double memory bandwidth, it cannot overcome the Quadro K620's clock advantage and newer architecture.

The average benchmark scores align with the head-to-head result. The Quadro K620 averages 6282 across its recorded tests, which include Geekbench OpenCL at 6693 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5870. The FirePro M4000 has only one recorded test, Geekbench OpenCL at 5537, which is also its average.

The wins tally is one for the Quadro K620 and zero for the FirePro M4000. The 20.9 percent OpenCL gap is consistent with the overall average gap of roughly 13.5 percent, suggesting the Quadro K620's advantage holds across different workloads.

The nearest rival data provides context. The Quadro K620's closest competitor in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, which scores 6270, just 0.2 percent below the Quadro K620's 6282 average. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6327, 0.7 percent above, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 6330, 0.8 percent above. The Quadro K620 sits in a tight cluster where small deltas separate cards.

The FirePro M4000's nearest rivals are all within a narrow band. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5508, 0.5 percent below the FirePro M4000's 5537. The GeForce GTX 765M scores 5501, 0.7 percent below. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5483, 1 percent below. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5604, 1.2 percent above. The FirePro M4000 is competitive with this group, but the Quadro K620 sits in a higher performance tier.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins in compute performance. The OpenCL benchmark shows a 20.9 percent lead, and the FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS supports this. Pixel rate also favors NVIDIA: 17.98 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s, a 66 percent advantage. Texture rate is likewise NVIDIA's: 26.98 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, a 25 percent lead. These fill-rate advantages suggest the Quadro K620 handles rasterization-heavy tasks better.

The Quadro K620 also wins on API support. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the FirePro M4000's 1.2.170. DirectX support is effectively tied, with the NVIDIA card at 12 (11_0) and the AMD card at 12 (11_1), a negligible difference for most workloads. OpenGL is identical at 4.6.

The Quadro K620 has a form-factor advantage for desktop workstations. It is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card with a 160 mm length, fitting standard desktop cases. Its display outputs include 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, enabling direct monitor connections.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins on memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s is more than double the Quadro K620's 28.80 GB/s. This could benefit memory-bound workloads, though the recorded benchmarks do not show a win on this basis. The FirePro M4000 also has a higher shader count at 512 versus 384, and more TMUs at 32 versus 24.

The FirePro M4000 has a power advantage. Its 33 W TDP is 12 W lower than the Quadro K620's 45 W. For mobile or thermally constrained systems, this lower draw is meaningful. The MXM-A (3.0) form factor is the defining feature: if a laptop or modular system requires an MXM module, the FirePro M4000 is the only choice between these two cards.

The FirePro M4000 also has a memory clock advantage at 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz, and its GDDR5 memory type is faster than DDR3. The effective data rate of 4 Gbps versus 1800 Mbps reflects this. However, the Quadro K620 compensates with higher core clocks: 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the FirePro M4000 has no listed clocks.

Use-case splits are clear. For desktop workstations running OpenCL compute or fill-rate-heavy graphics, the Quadro K620 is the stronger performer. For mobile systems with MXM slots and strict power budgets, the FirePro M4000 fits where the Quadro K620 cannot. The database's recorded wins all go to the Quadro K620, but the FirePro M4000 remains relevant in its specific portable niche.