AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs AMD FirePro W4100

These two entry-level professional GPUs from 2014 target similar workstation roles but take opposite approaches. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins the OpenCL compute test decisively, while the AMD FirePro W4100 counters with a clear Vulkan victory and double the memory bandwidth. The data shows a split decision: NVIDIA leads in raw FP32 compute and OpenCL workloads, while AMD offers better API support and memory throughput for certain tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 dominates in OpenCL compute. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6693 beats the FirePro W4100’s 5478 by a substantial 22.2% margin. This advantage comes from the K620’s higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS on the AMD card. For applications that lean heavily on OpenCL acceleration—think compute-focused CAD tasks, scientific visualization, or GPU-accelerated rendering—the K620 is the clear choice. Its shading unit count of 384 versus 512 on the FirePro seems counterintuitive, but higher clocks (1058 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost on the K620) and architectural efficiency tip the balance.

The AMD FirePro W4100 takes the Vulkan crown. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496 exceeds the K620’s 5870 by 9.6%. Vulkan is increasingly important for modern workstation applications and game engines used in previsualization. The W4100 also brings superior memory bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s from GDDR5 versus 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 on the K620. That 2.2x bandwidth advantage matters for texture-heavy workloads and large datasets that exceed the L2 cache. The W4100 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16 versus the K620’s PCIe 2.0 x16, which can reduce transfer bottlenecks with system memory.

The overall benchmark average favors the K620 at 6282 versus 5987 for the W4100, a 4.9% difference. Both cards sit in the lower third of all GPUs (36th percentile for K620, 34th for W4100), so neither is a performance monster—but in this class, the K620 holds the slight edge.

Architecture Differences

The K620 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The W4100 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture (chip Cape Verde), also 28 nm TSMC, but with 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die. The K620 packs more transistors into a larger die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm² on the W4100.

Memory configurations differ meaningfully. Both have 2 GB and a 128-bit bus, but the K620 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) while the W4100 uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This yields the W4100’s 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the K620’s 28.80 GB/s. The K620’s pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and texture rate of 26.98 GTexel/s are both higher than the W4100’s 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s, thanks to the K620’s higher clock speeds.

API support splits interestingly. The K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The K620’s newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170) explains part of its Vulkan score gap, though the W4100 still wins that test. Both support OpenGL 4.6 equally.

Thermal and power characteristics are close but not identical. The K620 draws 45 W TDP with a 200 W suggested PSU; the W4100 draws 50 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The K620 is shorter at 160 mm (6.3 inches) versus 171 mm (6.7 inches) for the W4100, with identical 69 mm (2.7 inches) heights.

Display outputs diverge significantly. The K620 offers 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The W4100 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, making it far more suitable for multi-monitor setups—up to four displays from a single card without adapters.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the K620’s strongest showing. Its score of 6693 against the W4100’s 5478 represents a 22.2% lead. This is not a marginal difference; it is a commanding win that aligns with the K620’s FP32 output of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS. For OpenCL-heavy workloads, the K620 delivers roughly a fifth more performance—a tangible improvement in render times or simulation throughput.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. The W4100 scores 6496 versus the K620’s 5870, a 9.6% advantage for AMD. This is a smaller margin than the K620’s OpenCL win, but still meaningful. Vulkan performance often depends on driver optimization and memory bandwidth, and the W4100’s 64.00 GB/s bandwidth likely helps here. The K620’s newer Vulkan 1.4 API support does not translate into a score advantage, suggesting the W4100’s GCN architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently in this class.

Each card wins exactly one benchmark, making the head-to-head a 1-1 tie. The average benchmark score—6282 for K620, 5987 for W4100—breaks the tie in NVIDIA’s favor by 4.9%. The K620’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, +0.2%) and AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, -0.7%), placing it in a tight performance cluster. The W4100’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, 0%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, -0.2%), showing it sits at a similar relative position.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 6693 versus the AMD FirePro W4100’s 5478, a 22.2% advantage. The K620’s higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS drives this lead.

Q: Which card performs better in Vulkan?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 6496 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the K620’s 5870 by 9.6%. This is despite the K620 supporting Vulkan 1.4 versus the W4100’s Vulkan 1.2.170, indicating the W4100’s architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: Both cards have 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, but the W4100 uses GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The K620 uses DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective, giving only 28.80 GB/s. The W4100 has 2.2x the bandwidth.

Q: Can I run multiple monitors on either card?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 supports 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, allowing up to four displays. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has only 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, limiting it to two displays without additional hardware.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The K620 has a 45 W TDP with a 200 W suggested PSU, while the W4100 has a 50 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU. Neither card needs auxiliary power connectors, and both are single-slot designs.

Q: Which card has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The K620 averages 6282 across its benchmark results, compared to 5987 for the W4100—a 4.9% higher average. The K620 also ranks at the 36th percentile of all GPUs versus the W4100’s 34th.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K620 if your work depends on OpenCL compute performance or you want the higher overall benchmark average. The 22.2% OpenCL lead is decisive, and the K620’s higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s) and texture rate (26.98 GTexel/s) suggest better rasterization throughput per clock. Its smaller physical footprint (160 mm versus 171 mm) and lower TDP (45 W versus 50 W) make it easier to fit in compact workstations.

Choose the AMD FirePro W4100 if Vulkan performance or multi-monitor output matters more. The 9.6% Vulkan advantage, combined with 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs and 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, makes it the better option for display-centric workflows or Vulkan-based applications. The PCIe 3.0 interface also reduces data transfer bottlenecks versus the K620’s PCIe 2.0.

For most entry-level workstation buyers, the K620’s OpenCL lead and higher average score tip the balance. But if your software stack uses Vulkan heavily or you need four simultaneous displays, the W4100’s strengths are not theoretical—they are measured advantages that could meaningfully affect daily use. Both cards are end-of-life products, so availability and driver support should factor into any purchase decision.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | AMD FirePro W4100 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell (GM107) | GCN 1.0 (Cape Verde) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1058 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 10.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.98 GTexel/s | 20.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 863.2 GFLOPS | 645.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 50 W |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 160 mm / 6.3 inches | 171 mm / 6.7 inches |

| Height | 69 mm / 2.7 inches | 69 mm / 2.7 inches |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2014-08-12 |