AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M and AMD FirePro M4000 are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. Benchmark data shows the Quadro K620M holds a 7.6% performance advantage in the sole head-to-head test, though the FirePro M4000 counters with a wider memory bus and higher raw throughput in several theoretical metrics. Below is a detailed breakdown based strictly on the supplied specifications and benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5957, compared to 5537 for the AMD FirePro M4000. This represents a 7.6% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Quadro K620M sits within a tight cluster, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (score 5955, delta 0%). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 by 0.4% and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M by 0.2%, while leading the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 0.5%. The FirePro M4000 leads the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 by 0.5%, the GeForce GTX 765M by 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 by 1%, but trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.2%.

Q: What is the difference in memory configuration?

A: The Quadro K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s bandwidth — exactly four times the bandwidth of the Quadro.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has 384 shading units and 16 TMUs. The FirePro also doubles the ROP count, with 16 compared to the Quadro's 8.

Q: What are the respective release dates and production statuses?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 was released on 2012-06-26, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M came later on 2015-02-28. Both are listed as end-of-life products.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 for the FirePro.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, while the AMD FirePro M4000 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Chelsea chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the underlying designs diverge sharply.

The Quadro K620M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The FirePro M4000 integrates 1,500 million transistors on a much larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.2M per mm². This means the FirePro has 47% more transistors spread across a 60% larger die area.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro K620M has specified base and boost clocks of 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz respectively. The FirePro M4000 has no listed base or boost clocks, with only its memory clock specified at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Quadro's memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The architectural split extends to compute resources. The FirePro M4000 fields 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K620M counters with 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs — exactly half the TMU and ROP counts of its competitor. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

API support shows generational differences. The Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level on the FirePro is notable given its older release date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results favor NVIDIA. The Quadro K620M scores 5957 against the FirePro M4000's 5537, a decisive 7.6% margin. This single data point suggests the Quadro holds a meaningful lead in general-purpose compute workloads as measured by OpenCL.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective rival pools adds nuance. The Quadro K620M's 5957 places it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, scores 5955 — a virtual tie with a 0% delta. The Quadro also sits just 0.4% below the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982) and 0.2% below the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970). It edges out the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) by 0.5%.

The FirePro M4000's 5537 lands at the 32nd percentile, two points lower than the Quadro. Its rival cluster is tighter overall. The FirePro leads the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) by 0.5%, the GeForce GTX 765M (5501) by 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483) by 1%. The only GPU ahead of it in this group is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604), which beats the FirePro by 1.2%.

The benchmark outcome is somewhat counterintuitive given the raw specifications. The FirePro M4000 has more shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, and four times the memory bandwidth. Yet the Quadro K620M still wins by 7.6%. This suggests that Maxwell's architecture extracts better real-world compute efficiency per resource, or that the OpenCL workload favors the NVIDIA implementation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The most striking divergence is memory: the Quadro K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro has four times the bandwidth but half the capacity.

Compute resources also favor AMD in raw counts. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. However, the Quadro compensates with higher clock speeds — 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost versus no listed clocks for the FirePro.

Theoretical throughput numbers reflect this trade-off. The FirePro M4000 achieves a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro K620M posts 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s respectively. But in FP32 compute, the Quadro leads with 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro — a 24.9% advantage for NVIDIA.

Chip characteristics differ substantially. The Quadro's GM108S die measures 77 mm² with 1,020 million transistors. The FirePro's Chelsea die measures 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors. Transistor density is 13.2M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 12.2M per mm² for AMD. Power draw is close, with the Quadro rated at 30 W and the FirePro at 33 W.

Both use MXM-A (3.0) interfaces and MXM Module slot widths, with no power connectors required. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both. Release dates differ by nearly three years, with the FirePro launching 2012-06-26 and the Quadro launching 2015-02-28. Neither GPU has a listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins the only available benchmark, posting a 7.6% higher Geekbench OpenCL score than the AMD FirePro M4000. It also leads in FP32 compute, delivering 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS — a substantial 24.9% advantage. Its higher clock speeds and newer architecture appear to offset the FirePro's greater resource counts.

The AMD FirePro M4000 is not without strengths. Its memory subsystem is vastly superior, with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s — a fourfold difference. It also doubles the TMU and ROP counts, leading to higher pixel and texture rates. For workloads that depend heavily on memory bandwidth or fill rates, the FirePro would likely hold an edge, though no benchmark data confirms this.

The percentile rankings reinforce the Quadro's overall position: 34th percentile versus 32nd for the FirePro. The Quadro's rival cluster also shows tighter competition at the top, while the FirePro's rivals cluster slightly lower. Neither GPU is a performance leader; both sit in the lower third of all GPUs.

For buyers choosing between these two end-of-life mobile workstation parts, the data leans toward NVIDIA. The Quadro K620M offers better OpenCL compute performance, higher FP32 throughput, and double the memory capacity. The FirePro M4000 counters with superior memory bandwidth and higher fill rates, but without benchmark confirmation of real-world benefits.

The choice ultimately depends on workload priorities. For general compute tasks and applications that leverage OpenCL, the Quadro K620M is the safer pick based on the 7.6% benchmark win. For memory-bandwidth-intensive operations, the FirePro M4000's 64.00 GB/s specification is compelling, but it remains unvalidated by the available head-to-head data. Given the benchmark evidence and the Quadro's more recent release, the NVIDIA part is the recommended option in this matchup.