AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics solutions, but only if you look at the full picture. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M and AMD Radeon 610M each claim territory in different benchmark categories, though the head-to-head comparison is limited to a single shared test.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M takes the win with a score of 5957 against the AMD Radeon 610M's 4535. That represents a 31.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin in compute workloads. The OpenCL benchmark measures general-purpose GPU compute performance, and here the older Maxwell architecture from NVIDIA demonstrates clear superiority over the newer RDNA 2.0 part from AMD.

However, the AMD Radeon 610M has its own benchmark victory, though it does not appear in the head-to-head table. The Radeon 610M records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6353, which is a separate test from the OpenCL benchmark. Vulkan measures graphics and compute performance through the Vulkan API, and this score is notably higher than the NVIDIA part's OpenCL result. This suggests the AMD solution is better optimized for Vulkan workloads, which matters for modern games and applications that use this API.

The database shows the NVIDIA Quadro K620M with an average benchmark score of 5957, while the AMD Radeon 610M averages 5444 across its two recorded tests. The percentile rankings place the NVIDIA part at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 32nd percentile. Both are firmly in the lower half of the GPU performance distribution, but the NVIDIA card edges ahead in overall standing.

For compute-heavy tasks using OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M is the clear winner. For Vulkan-based workloads, the AMD Radeon 610M appears stronger based on its higher Vulkan score. The use case split comes down to API preference and workload type: OpenCL favors NVIDIA, Vulkan favors AMD.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, delivering 31.4% higher OpenCL performance than the AMD Radeon 610M. This is a decisive margin in compute performance, and it places the Quadro in better company among its nearest rivals.

Looking at the rival comparisons, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M sits alongside the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, -0.4% delta), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929, 0.5% delta). These are all close scores, meaning the Quadro K620M performs essentially on par with a cluster of mid-range GPUs from several years ago.

The AMD Radeon 610M, by contrast, finds its nearest rivals at different performance levels. It compares to the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, -0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416, 0.5% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, -0.7% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, -1% delta). The average of these rivals is roughly 5467, which is notably lower than the NVIDIA Quadro K620M's rival cluster average of roughly 5959.

Who should pick which? For users running OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M is the better choice. The 31.4% lead in the head-to-head OpenCL test is substantial, and the part's average score is 513 points higher than the AMD part's average. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the AMD Radeon 610M shows a 6353 Vulkan score, which exceeds the NVIDIA part's OpenCL score of 5957, though these are different APIs and not directly comparable.

The AMD part also consumes less power, with a 15 W TDP versus the NVIDIA part's 30 W, which matters for thin-and-light laptops. But on pure compute performance, the data favors NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 4535. The delta is 31.4% in favor of NVIDIA, a significant performance gap.

This result aligns with the broader performance context. The NVIDIA part's average benchmark score of 5957 is 513 points higher than the AMD part's average of 5444, a difference of approximately 9.4%. The NVIDIA part also holds a higher percentile ranking at 34th versus 32nd, though both are in the lower half of all GPUs.

The AMD Radeon 610M does have its Vulkan score of 6353, which is higher than its own OpenCL score and higher than the NVIDIA part's OpenCL score. However, since the NVIDIA part has no recorded Vulkan score, a direct comparison in that API is impossible from the available data. What the database shows is that the AMD part performs significantly better in Vulkan than in OpenCL, suggesting architecture-level optimization for that API.

The texture and pixel rates tell a similar story to the OpenCL result. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M achieves 17.98 GTexel/s texture fill rate and 8.992 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the AMD Radeon 610M achieves 15.20 GTexel/s and 7.600 GPixel/s respectively. The NVIDIA part leads by roughly 18.3% in texture rate and 18.3% in pixel rate as well. These hardware-level throughput advantages translate directly into the OpenCL compute lead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 4535. The NVIDIA part leads by 31.4% in this benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 610M beat the NVIDIA Quadro K620M in any benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6353, which is higher than its own OpenCL score and higher than the NVIDIA part's OpenCL score. However, the NVIDIA part has no recorded Vulkan score, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible from the data.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M's closest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M with a score of 5955 and a 0% delta, meaning they perform identically. The AMD Radeon 610M's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M365X with a score of 5416 and a 0.5% delta, meaning the AMD part is slightly ahead.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a TDP of 30 W, while the AMD Radeon 610M has a TDP of 15 W. The AMD part consumes half the power of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has an average benchmark score of 5957, while the AMD Radeon 610M averages 5444. The NVIDIA part's average is 513 points higher.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M ranks at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon 610M ranks at the 32nd percentile. Both are in the lower half of the performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon 610M uses the Mendocino chip built on RDNA 2.0, manufactured on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die size is 100 mm², though the transistor count and density are not recorded in the database.

The NVIDIA part is designated as part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx200M), despite using the Maxwell architecture, which reflects a transitional naming period. The AMD part belongs to the Navi II IGP generation (Mendocino Mobile). The NVIDIA part's production status is end-of-life, as is the AMD part's.

The compute configurations differ significantly. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The AMD Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has three times the shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs. Conversely, the AMD part includes 2 ray tracing cores, which the NVIDIA part lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA part's FP32 compute is rated at 863.2 GFLOPS, while the AMD part is rated at 486.4 GFLOPS. The AMD part adds FP16 capability at 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which the NVIDIA part does not support. The NVIDIA part achieves a texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s, compared to the AMD part's 15.20 GTexel/s and 7.600 GPixel/s.

API support differs as well. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M operates at a base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the AMD Radeon 610M runs at 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost. The AMD part clocks significantly higher, though it has fewer compute units.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The NVIDIA part has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part uses system shared memory, with the size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all marked as system dependent. This means the AMD part's memory performance varies with the host system.

The NVIDIA part's memory clock is listed at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective rate. The AMD part's memory clock is listed as system shared, meaning it depends on the host system's memory configuration.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a TDP of 30 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. The AMD Radeon 610M has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Neither part requires power connectors, and neither has a suggested PSU.

The NVIDIA part was released on 2015-02-28, while the AMD part was released on 2022-09-19, a gap of over seven years. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The AMD part's predecessor is the Vega II IGP and its successor is the Navi III IGP.

Display outputs for both are listed as portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The NVIDIA part's dimensions are not recorded, and the AMD part's dimensions are also not recorded. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.