AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity about which of these two workstation cards is faster. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins both benchmark tests in the database, with a 2-0 sweep over the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The most decisive margin appears in the Vulkan compute test, where the AMD card posts a score of 7,827 against 5,870 for the NVIDIA card. That is a 33.3% advantage, a substantial gap that indicates a major difference in compute throughput under modern graphics APIs.

The OpenCL results are closer but still favor AMD. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 scores 7,333, while the Quadro K620 scores 6,693, a 9.6% lead. This narrower margin in OpenCL suggests the two cards are more comparable in legacy compute workloads, but the AMD part retains the advantage nonetheless. When both scores are averaged, the Radeon Pro WX 3100 produces an average benchmark score of 7,580, placing it in the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro K620 averages 6,282, which puts it in the 36th percentile. The delta between their average scores is roughly 17%, computed from the database values.

Context from the nearest rival lists reinforces the positioning. The Radeon Pro WX 3100 sits within 1.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (which averages 7,472), and it is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon R7 250 (7,557, a 0.3% difference) and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, a 0.4% difference). It trails the AMD Radeon 540 by 1.2% (that card averages 7,673). The Quadro K620, by contrast, is grouped with much lower-performing parts: it is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (both at 6,270), and within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6,330). The AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327) is 0.7% ahead. The absolute scores tell the story clearly: the WX 3100 outclasses the K620 in every recorded test, and the margin grows substantially in Vulkan.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for buyers choosing between these two end-of-life workstation cards. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is the faster card in both compute APIs recorded, and its average benchmark score is roughly 17% higher than the Quadro K620's. Anyone whose workload relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute should choose the AMD card based on the measurements alone. The 33.3% Vulkan advantage is especially meaningful for modern applications that leverage Vulkan for general-purpose compute, as that API is increasingly common in professional visualization and simulation tools.

The Quadro K620 is not without a niche, though. Its lower power draw, 45 W versus 65 W for the AMD card, makes it a candidate for systems with tight thermal or power budgets, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface may be a better fit for older platforms that lack PCIe 3.0 support. However, in raw compute performance, the K620 loses both tests. The database records no benchmark where the K620 wins. For any user prioritizing compute throughput, the WX 3100 is the only rational pick from these two.

That said, the WX 3100's advantage comes with trade-offs in platform compatibility. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which halves the lane count compared to the K620's PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. In practice, the newer PCIe generation compensates for the fewer lanes in most workloads, but legacy systems with only PCIe 2.0 slots may not support the AMD card at all. The K620 also supports Vulkan 1.4 in the database, whereas the WX 3100 lists Vulkan 1.3. For users running advanced Vulkan extensions, that difference could matter, though the WX 3100's raw Vulkan score is still far higher.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Radeon Pro WX 3100 for performance, pick the Quadro K620 only if power constraints or legacy platform compatibility outweigh the substantial compute deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and different foundries. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm. This explains why the AMD chip packs 2,200 million transistors into a die size of 103 mm², while the NVIDIA chip contains 1,870 million transistors across a larger 148 mm² die. The transistor density figures reflect this: the WX 3100 reaches 21.4 million transistors per mm², while the K620 manages only 12.6 million per mm².

The memory architectures also differ fundamentally. The WX 3100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128 bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 28.80 GB/s. That is a 3.3x bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, a gap that heavily influences compute performance in memory-bound workloads. The memory clock figures in the database show the WX 3100 running at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective data rate, while the K620 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The GDDR5 versus DDR3 distinction alone explains much of the performance delta.

Compute resources also favor AMD. The WX 3100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The K620 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The shading unit count is 33% higher on the AMD side, and the texture unit count is 33% higher as well. ROP counts are identical at 16. Pixel rates reflect the clock and ROP combination: the WX 3100 achieves 19.50 GPixel/s, while the K620 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s. Texture rates diverge more sharply: 39.01 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures show the WX 3100 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS, while the K620 reaches only 863.2 GFLOPS. The AMD card also lists FP16 performance at 1,248.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the K620 reports no FP16 capability at all.

API support differs as well. The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level difference is notable: 12_0 versus 11_0 means the K620 cannot access certain DirectX 12 features. The Vulkan version difference runs the other way, with the NVIDIA card supporting a newer specification revision.

Specification Differences

The database records several fields where these two cards differ directly. Process node: 14 nm for AMD, 28 nm for NVIDIA. Foundry: GlobalFoundries for AMD, TSMC for NVIDIA. Transistor count: 2,200 million versus 1,870 million. Die size: 103 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density: 21.4M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost. The WX 3100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1,219 MHz boost. The K620 runs at 1,058 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card has a higher base clock, but the AMD card has a higher boost clock. Memory clocks differ substantially: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory capacity and type: 4 GB GDDR5 versus 2 GB DDR3. Bus width is identical at 128 bit for both, but bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. Shading units: 512 versus 384. TMUs: 32 versus 24. ROPs: 16 for both. Pixel rate: 19.50 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 39.01 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. FP32: 1,248.3 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. FP16: 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1) for AMD, none listed for NVIDIA.

TDP: 65 W for AMD, 45 W for NVIDIA. Suggested PSU: 250 W for AMD, 200 W for NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD, PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs: the WX 3100 has 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a; the K620 has 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0). Vulkan support: 1.3 versus 1.4. Release dates: the WX 3100 launched on 2017-06-11, while the K620 launched on 2014-07-21. The WX 3100 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD; the K620 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both cards are single-slot, neither requires power connectors, and both are end-of-life products. The WX 3100 measures 168 mm in length (6.6 inches), the K620 measures 160 mm (6.3 inches), and both are 69 mm high (2.7 inches). The WX 3100's predecessor is the Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is the Radeon Pro Vega. The K620's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 averages 7,580, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6,282. That places the AMD card in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, versus the 36th percentile for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The WX 3100 scores 7,827 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the K620 scores 5,870. That is a 33.3% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Which card supports more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Both use a 128 bit bus, but the AMD card delivers 96.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the Quadro K620 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head records show the WX 3100 winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests. The K620 has zero recorded wins in this comparison.

Q: Which card has higher power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has a 65 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has a 45 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: What are the API differences between the two cards?

A: The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card has a higher DirectX feature level, while the NVIDIA card lists a newer Vulkan version.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 wins in every compute benchmark recorded. Its OpenCL score of 7,333 beats the K620's 6,693 by 9.6%, and its Vulkan score of 7,827 beats 5,870 by 33.3%. For workloads that rely on OpenCL, such as older CAD rendering plug-ins or scientific compute tools, the AMD card provides a meaningful but not overwhelming edge. For Vulkan-based applications, the AMD card is in a different performance class entirely. The 512 shading units versus 384, the 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 863.2 GFLOPS, and the 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s all contribute to this outcome. The 4 GB memory capacity also gives the WX 3100 headroom for larger datasets than the 2 GB K620 can hold locally.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins on power efficiency and platform compatibility. Its 45 W TDP is well below the WX 3100's 65 W, and its suggested PSU of 200 W is lower than the AMD card's 250 W recommendation. Systems with small power supplies or dense multi-GPU configurations would favor the K620. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is also a differentiator: older motherboards that only support PCIe 2.0 will not accommodate the WX 3100's PCIe 3.0 x8 requirement in the same way. The K620's Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the WX 3100's Vulkan 1.3, which may matter for software that depends on the latest Vulkan extensions. The K620 also offers a DVI output alongside DisplayPort 1.2, which suits legacy monitors, whereas the WX 3100 provides only DisplayPort 1.4a outputs (one full-size and two mini).

In practical terms, the use-case split is clear. For compute-intensive professional work, the WX 3100 is the superior choice by every measured metric. For low-power systems, legacy PCIe 2.0 platforms, or setups requiring DVI output, the K620 remains serviceable despite its lower scores. Users who need both performance and modern features should note that the WX 3100 is the newer card by about three years, and its architectural advantages reflect that generational gap. The database shows a 2-0 win for AMD, and the average score delta of roughly 17% is too large to ignore.