AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile workstation GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034. This yields a delta of 18.3% in favor of the NVIDIA part, making it the clear winner in the only direct comparison available.

Contextualizing the NVIDIA score, the Quadro K620M sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals reveal a tightly clustered field: the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5955 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970 (0.2% faster than the K620M), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982 (0.4% faster), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5929 (0.5% slower than the K620M). The Quadro K620M is thus essentially at parity with a group of mid-range mobile and entry desktop parts, all within a 0.9% spread.

For the AMD FirePro W4170M, the percentile ranking is 30th, and its nearest rivals paint a similar picture of tight competition. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5018 (0.3% slower than the W4170M), the AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 5063 (0.6% faster), the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 (0.6% faster), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998 (0.7% slower). The W4170M is squarely in the middle of this pack, neither dominant nor trailing significantly.

The 18.3% gap between the two workstation parts is substantial in this context. It places the Quadro K620M not just ahead of the FirePro W4170M, but in a different performance tier altogether when considering the rival clusters. The K620M’s score is roughly equivalent to what the database shows for the Quadro K4000, a desktop-class card, while the W4170M aligns more closely with integrated graphics solutions like the Radeon R7 Graphics. This suggests that in OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA solution offers a meaningful advantage over its AMD counterpart.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M is the superior choice for OpenCL compute performance. It wins the only head-to-head test, and its 18.3% lead is not a marginal difference but a decisive one. The FirePro W4170M, while competitive within its own peer group, simply does not match the K620M’s output in this workload.

Users whose primary concern is raw compute throughput in OpenCL applications should select the Quadro K620M. The data shows it outperforms the FirePro W4170M by a wide margin, and its nearest rivals include the Quadro K4000, a part that historically served desktop workstations. The K620M’s position at the 34th percentile, while not stellar in absolute terms, is still four percentile points higher than the W4170M’s 30th percentile.

However, the verdict is not universally one-sided when considering other factors in the database. The FirePro W4170M has a different memory subsystem, using GDDR5 across a 128-bit bus for a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is four times the bandwidth of the K620M’s DDR3 on a 64-bit bus (16.02 GB/s). This could matter in memory-bound scenarios, even though the OpenCL score does not reflect it. Yet, with no benchmark data to confirm such an advantage, the recorded measurements favor the Quadro K620M without qualification.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034. The K620M leads by 18.3%.

Q: How does the Quadro K620M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K620M is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.2% faster). It is 0.4% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and 0.5% faster than the Intel UHD Graphics 730.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The FirePro W4170M has a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s using GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro K620M has 16.02 GB/s using DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The FirePro offers four times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K620M has a pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s, compared to the FirePro W4170M’s 7.200 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA part is higher in this metric.

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 W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the transistor counts of these chips?

A: The Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors, while the FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge in several key specifications. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the AMD FirePro W4170M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part is clocked significantly higher.

Memory configuration differs markedly. The K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The W4170M also has 2 GB, but it uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The AMD part has a larger bus and faster memory type.

Texture mapping units (TMUs) differ: the K620M has 16 TMUs, while the W4170M has 24 TMUs. Shading units are equal at 384, and both have 8 ROPs. The texture fill rate reflects the TMU count: the K620M achieves 17.98 GTexel/s, while the W4170M achieves 21.60 GTexel/s.

Floating-point performance (FP32) is higher on the NVIDIA part: 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. Pixel rates are 8.992 GPixel/s for the K620M and 7.200 GPixel/s for the W4170M.

The bus interface differs: the K620M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the W4170M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The TDP for the K620M is listed as 30 W, while the W4170M has no TDP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip. The AMD FirePro W4170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both have a die size of 77 mm². Transistor counts differ slightly: 1,020 million for the K620M and 950 million for the W4170M, resulting in a transistor density of 13.2M per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.3M per mm² for AMD.

The generation names reflect different lineage: the K620M is listed under "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)" despite its Maxwell architecture, while the W4170M is under "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)". The predecessors and successors also differ: the K620M follows the Quadro Fermi-M and leads to the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the W4170M follows the FirePro Mobility and leads to the Radeon Pro Mobile.

API support shows differences in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Memory clocks are similar in base frequency (1001 MHz for the K620M, 1000 MHz for the W4170M), but the effective data rates differ: 2 Gbps for the NVIDIA part versus 4 Gbps for the AMD part. This, combined with the bus width difference, explains the fourfold bandwidth gap.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins in compute performance, as evidenced by its 18.3% higher OpenCL score. It also leads in pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s) and FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS). Its higher clock speeds (1029 MHz base versus 825 MHz) contribute to these wins. For workloads that are shader-bound or compute-bound, the K620M is the stronger part.

The AMD FirePro W4170M wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 64.00 GB/s versus the K620M’s 16.02 GB/s. This comes from its GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus. It also has a higher texture fill rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s) due to its 24 TMUs. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or texture-heavy, the W4170M has a structural advantage, even though no benchmark in the database confirms it.

The K620M also holds advantages in transistor count (1,020 million versus 950 million) and a higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm²). It supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170). The W4170M counters with a higher DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)).

In terms of nearest rivals, the K620M’s competition includes the Quadro K4000, a desktop card, while the W4170M’s rivals include integrated graphics like the Radeon R7 Graphics. This placement suggests the K620M is closer to desktop-class performance, while the W4170M is closer to integrated solutions. The data does not support any scenario where the W4170M wins a benchmark, so the use-case split must rely on architectural differences rather than measured results.