AMD Radeon HD 8750M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 and AMD Radeon HD 8750M are both end-of-life mobile and desktop-class graphics solutions built on a 28 nm process, but they target different segments of the professional and mobile markets. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear, if modest, overall performance advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro K620, which posts a higher average benchmark score and a better percentile ranking among all GPUs. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, answers common questions, and outlines where each card holds an edge based strictly on the available specifications and test scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970 points. This gives the NVIDIA card a 12.1% performance advantage in this particular compute workload. The delta is significant enough to place the cards in different competitive tiers, as evidenced by their respective nearest rival lists.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K620’s average benchmark score of 6282 places it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both with an average score of 6270, representing a negligible 0.2% difference. The Quadro K620 also sits within a hair of the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, -0.7%) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330, -0.8%). This clustering indicates that the Quadro K620 is performing right at the expected level for its class, with the 12.1% win over the HD 8750M being the standout differentiator.

The AMD Radeon HD 8750M, by contrast, achieves an average benchmark score of 5970, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all professional or mobile parts with very similar scores: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, -0.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, 0.2%), the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0.3%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, -0.3%). The tight grouping around the 5950-5990 score range suggests that the HD 8750M is a solid mid-pack performer, but it is clearly outclassed by the Quadro K620 in the OpenCL compute test. The data shows a decisive win for the NVIDIA part, with the 12.1% margin being a substantial gap in this performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has a higher average benchmark score of 6282, compared to the AMD Radeon HD 8750M’s average score of 5970.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K620 scores 6693, while the HD 8750M scores 5970. The Quadro K620 wins this test by a margin of 12.1%.

Q: How do these cards rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Quadro K620 is in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8750M is in the 34th percentile. This indicates the Quadro K620 sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Q: Are the closest competitors for each card similar in performance?

A: Yes. The Quadro K620’s closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, has an average score of 6270, which is only 0.2% different. The HD 8750M’s closest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, has an average score of 5982, a difference of -0.2%.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8750M’s pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same version of DirectX?

A: No. The Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the HD 8750M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The HD 8750M supports a slightly higher feature level.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. The 12.1% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the primary evidence, and its higher average benchmark score (6282 vs 5970) reinforces this. The Quadro K620 also boasts a much higher pixel rate at 17.98 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, which suggests a significant advantage in fill-rate bound workloads. Its texture rate of 26.98 GTexel/s also outpaces the HD 8750M’s 19.80 GTexel/s, indicating stronger pixel and texture processing capabilities. The Quadro K620 also has double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1024 MB, which can be a crucial factor in professional applications with larger datasets.

The AMD Radeon HD 8750M’s wins are more subtle and lie in specific feature support. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a higher feature level than the Quadro K620’s DirectX 12 (11_0). It also has a newer Vulkan API version at 1.2.170, compared to the Quadro K620’s Vulkan 1.4. While the Quadro K620 has a higher Vulkan version number (1.4), the HD 8750M’s DirectX 11_1 support is a spec-sheet advantage. The HD 8750M is also a mobile part with a smaller die size of 77 mm² compared to the Quadro K620’s 148 mm², which could imply different thermal and power characteristics, although no TDP is listed for the AMD card. For users prioritizing the latest DirectX feature levels, the HD 8750M has a nominal edge, but in raw performance, the Quadro K620 wins decisively.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ significantly in several core specifications. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, while the AMD Radeon HD 8750M uses the Mars chip based on GCN 1.0. The process node is identical at 28 nm, but the transistor counts differ: the Quadro K620 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the HD 8750M has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is very similar at 12.6M / mm² for the NVIDIA part and 12.3M / mm² for the AMD part.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The Quadro K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the HD 8750M is significantly slower at 775 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also different: the Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the HD 8750M has only 1024 MB of DDR3. Both use a 128-bit bus and have identical memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The rendering pipelines show notable differences. Both cards have 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, but the ROP count is 16 for the Quadro K620 and only 8 for the HD 8750M. This explains the substantial gap in pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s). The FP32 performance also favors the NVIDIA card at 863.2 GFLOPS compared to 633.6 GFLOPS. The bus interface differs as well, with the Quadro K620 using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the HD 8750M using PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro K620 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while those details are not listed for the HD 8750M. The Quadro K620 also has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the HD 8750M’s are not specified.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically using the GM107 chip. In contrast, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Mars chip. This represents two very different design philosophies from the respective manufacturers, which is reflected in their performance and feature sets.

The most impactful architectural difference lies in the ROP count. The Quadro K620 has 16 ROPs, which is double the 8 ROPs found on the HD 8750M. This is the primary reason for the massive difference in pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s). The higher ROP count allows the NVIDIA card to process pixel data at a much faster rate, which is critical for antialiasing and high-resolution rendering. Despite having the same number of shading units (384) and TMUs (24), the NVIDIA card achieves higher texture and pixel output rates due to its higher clock speeds and more efficient architecture.

The memory architecture is also a point of difference. While both use DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with the same 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, the Quadro K620 has double the capacity at 2 GB. This is a significant advantage for professional workloads that require larger framebuffers. The API support also differs, with the Quadro K620 supporting Vulkan 1.4 and the HD 8750M supporting Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX support also differs slightly, with the HD 8750M supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the Quadro K620’s DirectX 12 (11_0). The transistor budgets reflect the architectural complexity: the Quadro K620 packs 1,870 million transistors, nearly double the 950 million in the HD 8750M, despite a similar transistor density. This suggests the Maxwell architecture implements a more complex and capable execution pipeline. The production status for both is end-of-life, and the release dates show the HD 8750M launched earlier (2013-02-25) than the Quadro K620 (2014-07-21).