AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M240 and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at different segments of the laptop market. The R5 M240 is a mainstream part from AMD’s GCN 1.0 generation, while the Quadro K620M is a professional mobile workstation GPU from NVIDIA’s Maxwell family. Benchmark data from the database shows a single recorded OpenCL test, where the AMD part scores 6975 points against the NVIDIA’s 5957 points, a 17.1% advantage for the Radeon. This page breaks down where each card wins, how they compare in raw compute, and what architectural and specification differences explain the results.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded measurements, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 wins the only benchmark category available, Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 6975 places it 17.1% ahead of the Quadro K620M’s 5957. This is a clear, single-metric victory for AMD, and it suggests that for general-purpose compute workloads that scale with shader throughput and raw floating-point performance, the R5 M240 holds the edge. The Radeon’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, +0.4% for AMD) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023, -0.7% for AMD), meaning the R5 M240 sits in a performance band comparable to those older high-end gaming GPUs, at least in this OpenCL test. Its 39th percentile rank across all GPUs further indicates that it outperforms roughly two-fifths of the database’s tested hardware.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M, by contrast, wins no benchmark categories in this comparison. Its score of 5957 places it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2% for NVIDIA), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, -0.4% for NVIDIA). These deltas are all within half a percentage point, showing that the K620M is statistically tied with those parts in OpenCL performance. The Quadro’s strength, as the data implies, is not raw compute wins but rather its position as a professional-grade solution with a specific feature set and driver support, though the measured benchmark does not reflect any advantage in this test.

For a user deciding between these two purely on benchmark results, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 is the clear winner in compute performance. The K620M does not outperform the R5 M240 in any recorded test, so any justification for choosing the Quadro must come from its architectural features, professional positioning, or the fact that its performance is extremely close to a cluster of other mid-range parts, which may indicate consistent behavior across a range of workloads not captured by this single test.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for compute-oriented tasks: the AMD Radeon R5 M240 offers a 17.1% higher OpenCL score than the NVIDIA Quadro K620M, and it also carries a higher percentile ranking (39th vs 34th). If the only criterion is measured performance in the database’s benchmark, the R5 M240 is the superior choice. Its score of 6975 places it within 0.8% of the NVIDIA T600 (7035) and 0.7% of the GTX 680M (7023), which are both meaningfully faster than the Quadro’s score in this test.

However, the Quadro K620M is not without merit. Its 2 GB of memory is double the R5 M240’s 1 GB, and its 384 shading units outnumber the Radeon’s 320, though the R5 M240 still wins on raw FP32 throughput (659.2 GFLOPS vs 863.2 GFLOPS? No, the data shows the opposite: the Quadro has higher FP32). Let’s clarify: the Quadro K620M has a higher FP32 of 863.2 GFLOPS compared to the R5 M240’s 659.2 GFLOPS, and a higher boost clock (1124 MHz vs 1030 MHz). Yet the benchmark still favors the Radeon, which suggests that the OpenCL test may be influenced by factors beyond raw FP32, such as driver efficiency, memory latency, or specific workload characteristics. The R5 M240 also has a higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s) and a higher pixel rate (8.240 GPixel/s vs 8.992 GPixel/s? No, the Quadro has higher pixel rate; the R5 M240 has lower). The R5 M240’s texture rate is higher, but its pixel rate is lower.

For professional users who require certified drivers for CAD or DCC applications, the Quadro K620M’s positioning as a workstation part (with its Maxwell architecture and MXM form factor) may be more relevant than its OpenCL score. The database does not include any professional application benchmarks, so the Quadro’s advantage in that area is not quantified here. But strictly from the recorded data, the R5 M240 is the faster GPU in the only test that matters for this comparison. The verdict is simple: pick the Radeon for compute performance, pick the Quadro if you specifically need a mobile workstation GPU with 2 GB of memory and are willing to accept a 17.1% lower OpenCL score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957. The delta is 17.1% in favor of AMD. This is a substantial margin, larger than any of the differences between the R5 M240 and its own nearest rivals. For context, the R5 M240’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M, scores 6946, just 0.4% behind the Radeon. The Quadro K620M’s closest competitor, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, scores 5955, essentially identical to the Quadro (0% delta). This means the R5 M240 is competing in a higher performance tier altogether, roughly 1000 points higher than the Quadro’s peer group.

The 17.1% delta is not a marginal difference. It represents a clear generational or architectural gap in OpenCL compute capability. The R5 M240’s GCN 1.0 architecture, despite having fewer shading units (320 vs 384), achieves a higher score due to its higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s) and possibly better driver optimization for this workload. The Quadro’s higher FP32 (863.2 GFLOPS) does not translate into a higher OpenCL score, which is a notable finding. The data suggests that raw floating-point throughput is not the sole determinant of OpenCL performance, and other factors such as memory bandwidth (14.40 GB/s for AMD vs 16.02 GB/s for NVIDIA, where the Quadro is higher) or memory latency could play a role.

There are no other benchmark categories in the database, so this single result is the entirety of the head-to-head comparison. The AMD part wins the only matchup, and it wins decisively. If more tests existed, such as gaming frame rates or professional rendering scores, the picture might change, but based on what is recorded, the R5 M240 is the faster GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975, which is 17.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K620M’s 5957.

Q: How does the R5 M240 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M240 is 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946), 0.7% behind the GTX 680M (7023), and 0.8% behind the NVIDIA T600 (7035). It also leads the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830) by 2.1%.

Q: What is the Quadro K620M’s performance relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K620M is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2%). It is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982) and 0.5% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929).

Q: Does the Quadro K620M have more memory than the R5 M240?

A: Yes, the Quadro K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 memory. However, the R5 M240 still wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro K620M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, whereas the R5 M240 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The Quadro also has a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² vs 12.3M per mm².

Q: What are the process nodes for these GPUs?

A: Both GPUs are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The R5 M240 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Quadro K620M uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is built on GCN 1.0, AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture, which was designed for balanced compute and graphics performance. It uses the Jet chip and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M, on the other hand, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M) generation. This is a notable distinction: the Quadro’s generation name includes “Kepler-M,” but the architecture is listed as Maxwell, indicating a transition period.

In terms of compute resources, the R5 M240 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having more shading units, the Quadro has fewer TMUs, which explains its lower texture rate (17.98 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s for the Radeon). The R5 M240 also has a higher pixel rate? No, the Quadro’s pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s vs the R5 M240’s 8.240 GPixel/s. The R5 M240’s texture advantage is offset by the Quadro’s pixel rate advantage.

The transistor counts differ significantly: the Quadro has 1,020 million transistors versus 690 million for the Radeon, on a larger die (77 mm² vs 56 mm²). This gives the Quadro a higher transistor density (13.2M per mm² vs 12.3M per mm²). Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm node. The R5 M240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R5 M240’s Vulkan version is older, but its DirectX feature level is slightly higher (11_1 vs 11_0).

The R5 M240 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the Quadro K620M uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, which is a module standard for laptops. The Quadro has a TDP of 30 W, while the R5 M240 has no TDP listed in the database. The Quadro also has no power connectors and its display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” whereas the R5 M240 has no display output information recorded.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several key differences between the two GPUs. The most obvious is memory capacity: the R5 M240 comes with 1024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3, while the Quadro K620M offers 2048 MB (2 GB) of DDR3. Both use a 64-bit memory bus, but the Quadro has a higher memory bandwidth at 16.02 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s for the Radeon. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the R5 M240’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Clock speeds also differ. The R5 M240 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz. The Quadro K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, making it faster in both metrics. However, the R5 M240’s FP32 compute is 659.2 GFLOPS, while the Quadro’s is 863.2 GFLOPS, meaning the Quadro has 30.9% higher raw floating-point performance. Despite this, the R5 M240 wins the OpenCL benchmark, which is a counterintuitive result that highlights the complexity of real-world workloads.

The texture rate favors the Radeon: 20.60 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s. The pixel rate favors the Quadro: 8.992 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s. The R5 M240 has 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro has 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The Quadro’s higher ROP count? No, both have 8 ROPs; the Quadro’s higher clock gives it the pixel rate edge.

The bus interface is another differentiator: the R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0), which is a module form factor rather than a socketed bus. The Quadro’s TDP is 30 W, and its slot width is listed as “MXM Module,” while the R5 M240 has no TDP or slot width data. The Quadro has no power connectors, and its display outputs are dependent on the portable device, whereas the R5 M240 has no display output information. Both GPUs are end-of-life products, with the R5 M240 released on 2014-09-17 and the Quadro K620M on 2015-02-28. The R5 M240’s predecessor is “Solar System” and its successor is “Polaris Mobile,” while the Quadro’s predecessor is “Quadro Fermi-M” and its successor is “Quadro Maxwell-M.” Neither GPU has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.