AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 and AMD Radeon 760M are separated by nearly a decade of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm. The K620 is an end-of-life professional card from 2014, while the 760M is an active integrated graphics processor (IGP) from 2024. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the specific nature of each card’s wins matters for practical use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two common benchmark results in the data: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon 760M is the outright winner, and the margins are enormous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M scores 20,255 against the K620’s 6,693. This translates to a deltaPct of -67, meaning the K620 trails by 67%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: the 760M hits 30,336 while the K620 manages only 5,870, a deltaPct of -80.7. The K620 is not merely behind; it is operating in a different performance class.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this dominance. The Quadro K620 has an average benchmark score of 6,282, while the Radeon 760M sits at 6,019. This is a curious inversion: despite winning both head-to-head tests decisively, the 760M’s average score is lower than the K620’s. The reason lies in the benchmark pool. The 760M has ten recorded benchmarks, including several Passmark tests where it scores very low (e.g., Passmark DirectX 10 at 19, DirectX 11 at 52, and DirectX 9 at 65). These low scores drag down its average, even though its high-end Geekbench scores are stellar. The K620 has only two benchmarks, both of which are in the 5,800–6,700 range, keeping its average higher.

When comparing to their respective nearest rivals, both cards sit in a similar percentile band. The K620’s percentileVsAllGpus is 36, and its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M350 with an avgScore of 6,327 and a deltaPct of -0.7. The 760M’s percentileVsAllGpus is 35, with the AMD Radeon RX 6400 as its nearest rival (avgScore 6,001, deltaPct 0.3). This means that despite the 760M’s crushing victory in the head-to-head tests, its overall standing in the database is nearly identical to the K620’s, due to the weighting of its many low Passmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 760M wins every head-to-head benchmark available. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 30,336 is over five times higher than the K620’s 5,870. This suggests a massive advantage in compute-heavy, modern API workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is three times higher (20,255 vs 6,693), indicating substantially better general-purpose GPU compute performance. For any task leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan—rendering, physics simulation, or modern game engines—the 760M is the only viable choice.

The Quadro K620 does not win any of the head-to-head benchmarks. Its sole advantage is in the broader database context: its average benchmark score of 6,282 is 4.4% higher than the 760M’s 6,019. However, this is a statistical artifact of the benchmark suite, not a real-world performance edge. The K620’s only recorded wins are in the absence of competition—it has no Passmark scores, so it cannot be compared there. Practically, the K620 wins only in scenarios where it is the only card with a given feature set, such as its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, which is not shared with system RAM.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is stark. The K620 uses the GM107 chip on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The 760M uses AMD’s Phoenix chip on RDNA 3.0, built on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 25,390 million transistors in a 178 mm² die, achieving a density of 142.6M per mm². The 760M has over 13.5 times more transistors in a slightly larger package, a direct result of the advanced node.

The 760M’s architecture is modern in every respect. It features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Critically, it includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the K620. The K620 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 760M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the K620 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the 760M’s feature set is far ahead.

The clock speeds tell a story of power efficiency. The K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz. The 760M has a lower base of 800 MHz but boosts to 2599 MHz—more than double the K620’s boost. This, combined with the architectural efficiency of RDNA 3.0, allows the 760M to deliver far higher throughput despite a much lower TDP. The 760M’s FP32 performance is 5.323 TFLOPS, compared to the K620’s 863.2 GFLOPS. The 760M also has FP16 performance at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1), while the K620 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Specification Differences

The most fundamental difference is memory. The K620 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The 760M uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is System Dependent. This is a critical distinction: the K620’s memory is fixed and isolated, while the 760M’s performance is tied to the host system’s RAM speed and configuration.

The TDP difference is dramatic. The K620 is rated at 45 W, while the 760M is rated at 15 W. This makes the 760M an integrated processor with no dedicated power connectors, while the K620 is a single-slot card that also requires no power connectors but does suggest a 200 W PSU. The 760M has no suggested PSU, as it draws power from the motherboard.

The bus interfaces differ: the K620 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The 760M’s interface has a higher bandwidth per lane, but its x8 configuration means it may be limited in some high-throughput scenarios. The K620 has display outputs of 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the 760M’s outputs are Motherboard Dependent. The K620 is 160 mm long and 69 mm high; the 760M has no physical dimensions because it is an IGP.

In terms of production status, the K620 is End-of-life with a release date of 2014-07-21. The 760M is Active, released on 2024-01-30. The K620’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The 760M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP, and it has no successor. Neither card has a launchMsrp in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is significantly faster, scoring 20,255 versus the Quadro K620’s 6,693, a 67% margin.

Q: Does the Quadro K620 win any benchmark?

A: No. The K620 loses both head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score (6,282) is higher than the 760M’s (6,019), but this is due to the 760M’s low Passmark scores, not a real performance win.

Q: What is the memory situation for each card?

A: The K620 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The 760M uses System Shared memory, so its bandwidth is System Dependent.

Q: Why is the 760M’s average score lower despite winning head-to-head?

A: The 760M has ten benchmark results, including several low Passmark scores (e.g., 19 in DirectX 10, 52 in DirectX 11). The K620 has only two high-scoring benchmarks, which keeps its average higher.

Q: Does the 760M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 8 ray tracing cores. The K620 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The K620 has a TDP of 45 W, while the 760M has a TDP of 15 W. The 760M is far more power-efficient.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior performer in every direct comparison. It delivers 202% higher OpenCL performance and 416% higher Vulkan performance than the Quadro K620. Its architecture is a decade newer, with a 4 nm process versus 28 nm, and it includes features like ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate that the K620 lacks entirely.

The K620’s only saving grace is its dedicated 2 GB of VRAM, which some legacy professional applications may require for stability. However, its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is a fraction of what even entry-level modern cards offer, and its FP32 compute of 863.2 GFLOPS is dwarfed by the 760M’s 5.323 TFLOPS.

For anyone choosing between these two today, the Radeon 760M is the only rational pick for general compute, modern APIs, or any workload that benefits from raw throughput. Its 15 W TDP means it can be integrated into a low-power system, while the K620 requires a dedicated slot and 45 W. The K620 should only be considered if a specific legacy application absolutely requires a discrete GPU with dedicated memory and cannot run on an IGP. In all other cases, the 760M’s benchmark dominance and architectural advantages make it the clear winner.