AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and NVIDIA Quadro K620M are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards, but they target very different physical and performance niches. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, where the FirePro W600 takes the win, but the full specification sheets reveal a story of desktop flexibility versus mobile efficiency. This analysis breaks down where each card makes sense based strictly on the provided benchmark and specification data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results give a clear, if narrow, picture: the AMD FirePro W600 wins the only recorded comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W600 scores 6223, which is 4.5% ahead of the Quadro K620M’s score of 5957. This makes the W600 the outright winner in raw compute performance, as reflected in the `winsA` count of 1 against `winsB` of 0.

However, the win is not a landslide. A 4.5% delta is a modest margin, placing these cards in a similar performance tier. The FirePro W600’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 6950, scores 6210, a mere 0.2% difference. This indicates the W600’s score is tightly grouped with its immediate competition. The Quadro K620M, on the other hand, sits 0.5% above the Intel UHD Graphics 730, which scores 5929, showing it is competitive with modern integrated graphics in this specific workload.

The real differentiator is not the benchmark score but the context of use. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot, 168 mm long desktop card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Its advantage is in multi-display, fixed-installation environments. The Quadro K620M is an MXM Module with a 30 W TDP, designed for portable devices where space and power are critical. Its win is not in benchmark scores but in its form factor and power envelope, which the data shows is less than half the TDP of the W600.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W600 is built on the Cape Verde chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip with the Maxwell architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with fewer resources: 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die, giving a higher density of 13.2M per mm².

The compute resources differ significantly. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The Quadro K620M has fewer of each: 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the K620M achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS compared to the W600’s 768.0 GFLOPS. This is a result of the Maxwell architecture’s higher clock efficiency; the K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the W600’s clock data is not provided.

Memory configurations are also starkly different. The W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which yields only 16.02 GB/s—a quarter of the bandwidth. While the K620M’s memory clock is effectively 2 Gbps, the W600’s is 4 Gbps, further widening the gap. The API support shows the W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), and the K620M has a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170 for the W600).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark recorded is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro W600 scored 6223, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scored 5957. The winner is the FirePro W600 with a delta of 4.5%. This is the sole data point for direct comparison, so all performance conclusions must be drawn from this single result.

Contextualizing this score against their nearest rivals adds depth. The FirePro W600’s score is 0.2% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 6950 and 0.7% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER. This shows the W600 is performing at a level comparable to a much older high-end desktop card, but it is far behind modern flagship GPUs. The Quadro K620M’s score is 0% different from the AMD Radeon HD 8730M and only 0.4% lower than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000. This places the K620M in the same performance bracket as older mid-range mobile and desktop parts.

The 4.5% delta in favor of the FirePro W600 is consistent with its hardware advantages. The W600 has double the TMUs and ROPs of the K620M, and four times the memory bandwidth. These specs directly impact texture fill rate (24.00 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s vs 8.992 GPixel/s). The K620M’s higher FP32 throughput does not translate into a win in this OpenCL test, suggesting the memory bandwidth is a more critical factor for this workload.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision based on use case. If the requirement is a stationary workstation with multiple displays, the AMD FirePro W600 is the superior choice. It wins the only benchmark, offers six mini-DisplayPort outputs, and has a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Its 75 W TDP is manageable for a desktop system with a suggested 250 W PSU. It is a desktop card first and foremost.

If the requirement is a mobile workstation or a compact, low-power system, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M is the only viable option from this pair. Its MXM Module form factor and 30 W TDP make it suitable for laptops where the FirePro W600 physically cannot fit. The K620M is not competitive in raw performance, trailing by 4.5% in the benchmark, but its power efficiency is a decisive advantage. The data shows no performance scenario where the K620M wins, but its existence is justified by its portability.

The user should pick the FirePro W600 for fixed, multi-monitor desktop workstations where the extra performance and display outputs are beneficial. The user should pick the Quadro K620M for a portable system, accepting the lower performance and memory bandwidth in exchange for the mobile form factor. There is no ambiguity in the benchmark data; the choice is dictated entirely by the physical constraints of the system.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 is faster, scoring 6223 against the NVIDIA Quadro K620M’s 5957, a 4.5% difference.

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

A: The FirePro W600 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.

Q: Can the NVIDIA Quadro K620M be installed in a standard desktop PCIe slot?

A: No, the K620M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and is an MXM Module, designed for portable devices, not standard desktop slots.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 (single-precision) compute throughput?

A: Despite having fewer shading units, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a higher FP32 rate of 863.2 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD FirePro W600’s 768.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the TDP of each card, and how does that affect system requirements?

A: The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP and requires a suggested 250 W power supply, while the Quadro K620M has a 30 W TDP and no suggested PSU is listed.

Q: How does each card compare to its closest rival in the data?

A: The FirePro W600 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950, while the Quadro K620M is 0.5% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 730.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences between the two cards, based only on the provided data.

| Specification | AMD FirePro W600 | NVIDIA Quadro K620M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | Cape Verde | GM108S |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx000) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M) |

| 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 | Not specified | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 4 Gbps effective | 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 768.0 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2015-02-28 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Maxwell-M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not specified |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 6223 | 5957 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 36 | 34 |