AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a clear verdict. The AMD FirePro M5100 posts a score of 6830, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M manages 5957. That works out to a 14.7% advantage for the AMD part, which is a decisive gap in mobile workstation terms.

Putting these scores into context with close rivals makes the result more meaningful. The FirePro M5100 sits just 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6764), and 2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698). Those are small margins, but they show the FirePro is holding its own against a range of contemporary mobile and low-end desktop parts. On the flip side, it trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M by 1.7% (6946) and the AMD Radeon R5 M240 by 2.1% (6975). The picture is one of a GPU that lands right in the middle of a tightly packed cluster of competitors.

The Quadro K620M, meanwhile, sits in a slightly lower performance band. Its score of 5957 puts it within a whisker of the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, a 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, where the Quadro is 0.2% behind). It also edges past the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929) by 0.5%, and trails the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982) by 0.4%. These are all near-identical results, meaning the K620M is essentially at parity with its immediate peers, but it is not breaking away from them.

The head-to-head delta of 14.7% is the single biggest point of separation between the two cards. That is not a marginal difference; it is a meaningful step up in raw compute throughput. For OpenCL workloads, which are common in CAD, simulation, and GPU-accelerated analysis, the FirePro M5100 is the stronger performer by a comfortable margin.

Architecture Differences

Under the hood, these two GPUs take fundamentally different approaches. The AMD FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip, built on the GCN 1.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 12.2M per mm².

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip, based on the Maxwell architecture. It is also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the die is much smaller at 77 mm², with 1,020 million transistors. That gives it a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm², showing a more compact design that squeezes more transistors into less space.

Core counts differ substantially. The FirePro M5100 carries 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 40% reduction in shader count and a 50% reduction in both TMUs and ROPs for the NVIDIA part. These are structural differences that directly explain the performance gap in compute-heavy tasks.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The K620M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, which is significantly higher than the FirePro's 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost. But raw clock speed does not compensate for the core deficit. The FirePro still produces higher throughput: 992.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the K620M. Pixel rate also favors AMD at 12.40 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 31.00 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Memory is another major divergence. The FirePro M5100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which yields only 16.02 GB/s. That is a massive bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, roughly 4.5 times the NVIDIA part. For memory-hungry workloads like large textures or data sets, this difference is critical.

The memory clocks also reflect the gap: the FirePro runs at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective, while the K620M runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The bus width difference is the real story here, though.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_1, while the K620M supports 12 at feature level 11_0. Vulkan support differs: the FirePro lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K620M lists Vulkan 1.4. That gives NVIDIA a newer Vulkan revision, which could matter for specific Linux or Vulkan-based applications.

Power draw is a clear differentiator. The K620M has a rated TDP of 30 W, while the FirePro has no TDP listed in the database. The NVIDIA part also has no power connectors required, suggesting a lower-power design that is easier to cool in thin mobile chassis. Both use MXM-A (3.0) interfaces and are portable device dependent for display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K620M's 5957.

Q: How do these cards compare to their closest rivals?

A: The FirePro M5100 is within 2% of the AMD Radeon R7 M370 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, and within 2.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and AMD Radeon R5 M240. The K620M is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, AMD Radeon HD 8750M, NVIDIA Quadro K4000, and Intel UHD Graphics 730.

Q: Is there a big difference in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The FirePro M5100 offers 72.00 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR5 interface, while the K620M offers 16.02 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 interface. That is a substantial advantage for AMD.

Q: Do both cards support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a rated TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors. The FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed in the database, so a direct comparison cannot be made from recorded data.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. AMD has more of every core type.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the AMD FirePro M5100 is the stronger GPU for compute-oriented tasks. Its 14.7% OpenCL lead over the K620M is backed by superior core counts, higher FP32 throughput (992.0 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS), and vastly higher memory bandwidth (72.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s). If you are running OpenCL-accelerated workloads, the FirePro is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is not without merit, though. Its 30 W TDP and lack of power connectors indicate a lower-power design, which could be easier to integrate into compact or thermally constrained laptops. It also carries a newer Vulkan revision (1.4 versus 1.2.170), which might be relevant for specific software stacks.

But the benchmark data is unambiguous: the FirePro wins the only recorded test, and it does so by a meaningful margin. For anyone choosing between these two for a mobile workstation, the FirePro M5100 delivers more compute performance per the available evidence.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M5100 | NVIDIA Quadro K620M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Venus | GM108S |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 775 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz, 4.5 Gbps effective | 1001 MHz, 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.40 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.00 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 992.0 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 30 W |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-10-15 | 2015-02-28 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins in every measured performance category. It is 14.7% faster in OpenCL, has 640 shading units versus 384, and delivers 4.5 times the memory bandwidth. If your work involves GPU compute, rendering, or any task that scales with shader count and memory throughput, the FirePro is the better pick.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins on power efficiency. Its 30 W TDP is a concrete advantage for mobile systems where battery life and thermal management are priorities. It also has a newer Vulkan implementation (1.4 versus 1.2.170), which could be a deciding factor for specific Vulkan-based applications that require newer features.

For a practical recommendation: choose the FirePro M5100 if your primary concern is compute performance and you have the thermal headroom to accommodate it. Choose the K620M if you need a lower-power GPU for a thin-and-light chassis and your workloads are less demanding on memory bandwidth and raw FP32 throughput. The data does not support the K620M as a faster card, but it does support it as a more efficient one.