AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has a higher average benchmark score of 6282, while the AMD FirePro W600 averages 6223.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 7.6% higher than the AMD FirePro W600's score of 6223.

Q: Are these cards comparable in overall performance ranking?

A: Yes, both sit at the 36th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are near each other in the overall performance distribution.

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

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is more than double the 28.80 GB/s of the NVIDIA Quadro K620.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 features 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 has only 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD FirePro W600?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two workstation GPUs come from different architectural lineages, and that distinction shapes their respective strengths. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The AMD FirePro W600, by contrast, employs the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm node.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ notably. The NVIDIA chip packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD silicon contains 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower density of 12.2 million per mm². While both use the same process node, the NVIDIA implementation is both larger in physical area and denser in transistor packing.

The compute resource allocation diverges as well. The AMD FirePro W600 carries 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, compared to 384 shading units and 24 TMUs for the NVIDIA Quadro K620. Both cards have 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the NVIDIA part achieves higher raw throughput in certain metrics — its FP32 rate is 863.2 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the AMD card. Pixel rate also favors NVIDIA at 17.98 GPixel/s against 12.00 GPixel/s, while texture rate is closer at 26.98 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems use different technologies. The Quadro K620 employs 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, reaching 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but achieves 64.00 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth. Clock behavior also differs: the NVIDIA card has defined base and boost clocks of 1058 MHz and 1124 MHz respectively, while the AMD part lists no base or boost clock figures, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate.

API support shows generational differences. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 — a lower Vulkan version but a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data yields exactly one win for the NVIDIA Quadro K620 and zero for the AMD FirePro W600. That single victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA card scores 6693 against 6223 for the AMD part — a margin of 7.6%. This suggests the NVIDIA architecture extracts more OpenCL compute performance from its hardware configuration, despite having fewer shading units and lower memory bandwidth.

However, the comparison is not one-sided in practical terms. The AMD FirePro W600 offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it the clear choice for multi-display workstation setups where driving many monitors simultaneously is the priority. The NVIDIA Quadro K620, with only one DVI and one DisplayPort 1.2 connector, is limited to fewer concurrent displays.

Memory bandwidth is another arena where the AMD card holds a decisive advantage. With 64.00 GB/s against 28.80 GB/s, the FirePro W600 has more than twice the memory throughput. This could benefit workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, even if the raw OpenCL score does not reflect that advantage. The GDDR5 memory type further underscores the AMD card's bandwidth-oriented design.

The NVIDIA part counters with a higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS, as well as a better pixel fill rate. Its boost clock of 1124 MHz — though the AMD card lists no comparable clock — helps explain why fewer shading units can still produce more compute output. For tasks that are compute-bound rather than memory-bound, the Quadro K620's architecture appears more efficient.

Power and physical considerations also differ. The NVIDIA card draws 45 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the AMD card draws 75 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA card is shorter at 160 mm versus 168 mm, and shorter in height at 69 mm versus 111 mm. The AMD card has a 20 mm width specification, while NVIDIA does not list a width.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | AMD FirePro W600 |

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

| Chip | GM107 | Cape Verde |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| 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 listed |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | Not listed |

| 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 | 12.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.98 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 768.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 75 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 | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 160 mm x 69 mm | 168 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2012-06-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a clear winner. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. The delta of 7.6% in favor of NVIDIA is meaningful but not overwhelming — it places the two cards roughly in the same performance tier, which is consistent with both sitting at the 36th percentile of all GPUs.

Contextualizing this score against nearest rivals helps show where each card stands. The Quadro K620's average score of 6282 is 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both of which average 6270. It is 0.7% below the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6327 and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330. These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating the Quadro K620 sits in a tightly packed cluster of comparable performers.

The FirePro W600's average score of 6223 is 0.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 6950 at 6210, but 0.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both at 6270. It is 0.9% below the NVIDIA Quadro K620's 6282. The AMD card's nearest rivals also cluster tightly, but its position is slightly lower than the NVIDIA card's within that cluster.

The 7.6% OpenCL margin between the two cards is larger than the 0.9% gap in their average scores. This discrepancy suggests the OpenCL workload specifically favors the NVIDIA architecture more than the general average would imply. The NVIDIA card's higher shader clock efficiency — 863.2 GFLOPS from 384 shaders versus 768.0 GFLOPS from 512 shaders — likely explains this advantage. The AMD card's higher memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s does not translate into an OpenCL win, indicating the benchmark is more compute-bound than memory-bound.

In the broader field, both cards are near the bottom of modern GPU performance, with the 36th percentile ranking placing them below the majority of contemporary graphics hardware. Their nearest rivals include modern RTX cards, which is notable given the age difference in release dates — the Quadro K620 launched in 2014 and the FirePro W600 in 2012. That these older workstation parts still benchmark within 1% of modern RTX cards speaks to the longevity of workstation-class silicon in compute-oriented workloads.