AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and NVIDIA Quadro K620 are both end-of-life, single-slot workstation graphics cards aimed at professional visualization workloads, but they represent vastly different technological eras. Benchmark data shows the AMD card holds a decisive performance advantage, with an average benchmark score of 6330 compared to the Quadro K620’s 6282, a 0.8% delta. However, the WX 4100’s lead is far more pronounced in compute-oriented tests, where its modern architecture and memory subsystem deliver multi-fold improvements over the older NVIDIA part.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 6330 on average, which is 0.8% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K620’s 6282. Both cards sit in the 36th–37th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level workstation parts.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The WX 4100 achieves an OpenCL score of 17642, while the Quadro K620 scores 6693. This represents a 163.6% advantage for the AMD card, showing a massive gap in general-purpose compute throughput.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the WX 4100 scores 18703 versus 5870 for the K620. The AMD card is 218.6% faster, the largest margin between the two in any shared benchmark.

Q: Which card has more memory, and what type?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the NVIDIA card wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the WX 4100 wins 2 benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan) while the Quadro K620 wins 0. The K620’s only listed benchmarks are those two, both of which it loses decisively.

Q: What is the release date and production status of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 was released on 2016-11-09, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 launched earlier on 2014-07-21. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and fabrication nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is built on the Baffin chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, made on a 28 nm process at TSMC, housing 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die for a density of just 12.6M per mm².

These architectural differences translate directly into raw compute resources. The WX 4100 features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The K620 is far leaner, with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card’s peak FP32 throughput is 2.460 TFLOPS, nearly three times the K620’s 863.2 GFLOPS. The WX 4100 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.460 TFLOPS), while the Quadro K620 has no listed FP16 capability.

Clock speeds and memory architecture further separate the two. The WX 4100 runs at a base clock of 1125 MHz with a boost of 1201 MHz, while the K620 operates at 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. More critically, the AMD card uses GDDR5 memory running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), whereas the NVIDIA card uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This yields a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s for the WX 4100 versus 28.80 GB/s for the K620 — a 3.3x advantage for AMD. The WX 4100 also doubles the memory capacity to 4 GB from 2 GB.

Feature support also diverges. The WX 4100 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. While the NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan revision, it is limited to the lower DirectX feature level, reflecting its older Maxwell architecture. The AMD card also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the K620 provides only one DVI and one DisplayPort 1.2. The WX 4100 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, whereas the K620 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks shared between these cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and in both, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 dominates. The OpenCL test shows the WX 4100 scoring 17642 against the Quadro K620’s 6693, a 163.6% delta. This massive gap reflects the combined effect of the AMD card’s 2.85x higher shading unit count, 3.33x memory bandwidth, and 2.85x FP32 throughput. The K620’s Maxwell architecture, while efficient for its time, simply cannot compete with the newer GCN 4.0 design in compute-heavy workloads.

The Vulkan test reveals an even wider chasm. The WX 4100 scores 18703, while the K620 manages only 5870, giving AMD a 218.6% advantage. This suggests that the AMD card’s modern async compute capabilities and higher texture fill rate (76.86 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s) provide outsized benefits in low-level graphics APIs. The pixel rate also favors AMD at 19.22 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, though this is a smaller margin.

It is worth remembering the WX 4100 has additional benchmark results that the K620 lacks entirely, including PassMark tests: G2D (646), G3D (3699), GPU Compute (1475), DirectX 9 (56), DirectX 10 (16), DirectX 11 (24), and DirectX 12 (22). These scores are not part of the head-to-head comparison but indicate the AMD card’s broader testing coverage. The K620’s nearest rival list includes the WX 4100 with a delta of -0.8%, confirming that despite the AMD card’s overwhelming compute wins, the overall average scores are close due to the limited shared test set.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The process node is 14 nm for AMD versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count is 3,000 million versus 1,870 million, and die size is 123 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is 24.4M per mm² for the WX 4100 and 12.6M per mm² for the K620.

Memory configuration shows the WX 4100 with 4 GB GDDR5 at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The K620 has 2 GB DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the memory type and speed create a 3.3x bandwidth gap.

Compute resources differ sharply: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for AMD versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 19.22 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 76.86 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 2.460 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. The WX 4100 supports FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS, while the K620 has no FP16 data.

Power and physical specs are closer. TDP is 50 W for the WX 4100 and 45 W for the K620. Both are single-slot with no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 250 W for AMD and 200 W for NVIDIA. The WX 4100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm high; the K620 is 160 mm long and 69 mm high. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA.

Display outputs differ: the WX 4100 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a ports, while the K620 has one DVI and one DisplayPort 1.2. API support shows DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6 for both, and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.4. Release dates are 2016-11-09 versus 2014-07-21. The WX 4100 has a launch MSRP of 399 USD; the K620 has no listed launch MSRP. The AMD card’s predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and successor is Radeon Pro Vega, while the NVIDIA card’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in every measurable category that matters for modern workstation use. Its 2.85x shading unit advantage and 3.33x memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for GPU compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, and data processing. The 163.6% OpenCL lead and 218.6% Vulkan lead confirm that the WX 4100 is in a different performance class. The 4 GB memory capacity also allows larger datasets to reside on the GPU without spilling to system memory, a practical advantage over the K620’s 2 GB.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620’s strengths are relative and narrow. Its lower TDP of 45 W versus 50 W and smaller 160 mm length make it slightly more compact and power-efficient, though both are single-slot and require no external power connectors. The K620 supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer revision than the WX 4100’s Vulkan 1.3, which could matter for specific software stacks that require the latest API features. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while older, offers more electrical lanes than the WX 4100’s PCIe 3.0 x8, though the AMD card’s higher per-lane bandwidth likely negates this in practice.

For pure benchmark performance, the WX 4100 is the definitive winner. However, the K620’s 36th percentile ranking places it only one percentile below the WX 4100’s 37th, indicating that in the broader GPU landscape, both are entry-level parts. The K620 could still be viable for legacy applications that rely on older DirectX 11_0 feature levels or for systems where its lower power draw is critical. But for any workload that exercises compute or modern graphics APIs, the WX 4100’s 2.460 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth make it the only rational choice between the two.