AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 records an average benchmark score of 6282, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 records 5859. The Quadro K620 leads by 423 points, which corresponds to a 14.2% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head test.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K620 sits within 0.8% of its closest rivals: it is 0.2% ahead of the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (both scoring 6270), and 0.7% behind the Radeon R7 M350 (6327) and 0.8% behind the Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330). The Radeon R5 M435 is 0.3% ahead of the Radeon R7 M465 (5841), 1.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929), and 1.6% behind both the Radeon HD 8730M (5955) and the Quadro K620M (5957).

Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K620 sits at the 36th percentile, while the Radeon R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile. This places the Quadro in a slightly higher overall performance tier.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory, but the Quadro K620 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and 900 MHz memory clock (1800 Mbps effective). The Radeon R5 M435 uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 36.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1125 MHz memory clock (4.5 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the difference in pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Quadro K620 delivers 17.98 GPixel/s and 26.98 GTexel/s. The Radeon R5 M435 delivers 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro's pixel rate is more than double that of the Radeon, while its texture rate is roughly 31% higher.

Q: Which GPU offers more shading units and compute throughput?

A: The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units and 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Radeon R5 M435 has 320 shading units and 659.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro's FP32 output is 204 GFLOPS higher.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear preference for the NVIDIA Quadro K620 in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6693 versus 5859 for the Radeon R5 M435 represents a 14.2% advantage, and its average benchmark score of 6282 versus 5859 confirms the lead holds across the recorded measurements. The Quadro also wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, claiming 1 win versus 0 for the Radeon.

For users prioritizing professional-grade compute workloads, the Quadro K620 is the stronger pick. It offers higher pixel throughput (17.98 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s), higher texture throughput (26.98 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s), and nearly 31% more FP32 compute (863.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS). The card also carries a 45 W TDP with a single-slot form factor and no additional power connectors, making it feasible for compact workstation builds.

The Radeon R5 M435, however, is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory provides 36.00 GB/s bandwidth, which is 25% higher than the Quadro's 28.80 GB/s, despite using a narrower 64-bit bus. It also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a newer bus generation than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16. For tasks that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, the Radeon may hold an advantage in that specific metric, though the overall compute scores suggest the Quadro compensates elsewhere.

The Radeon's nearest rivals are notably weaker: it sits within 1.6% of integrated graphics like the Intel UHD Graphics 730 and older mobile parts like the Radeon HD 8730M. The Quadro, by contrast, trades blows with much higher-tier discrete parts (within 0.8% of the Radeon Pro WX 4100 and R7 M350). The percentile data reinforces this: 36th versus 33rd percentile. This is not a close contest; it is a one-sided comparison where the Quadro K620 is the recommended choice for any user who can accommodate its desktop form factor and older PCIe interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head test in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859. The delta is 14.2% in favor of the Quadro. This is a decisive margin in synthetic compute workloads, and it aligns with the raw specification differences.

Breaking down the architectural contributions, the Quadro's 384 shading units versus 320 gives it a 20% unit count advantage. Its base clock of 1058 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz are substantially higher than the Radeon's 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The combination of more units and higher clocks yields the FP32 gap: 863.2 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS, a 31% difference.

The memory subsystem tells a different story. The Radeon's GDDR5 memory at 4.5 Gbps effective on a 64-bit bus produces 36.00 GB/s, which beats the Quadro's DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s. The Radeon's bandwidth advantage is 25%. However, this does not translate into a compute win, suggesting the OpenCL workload is more sensitive to shading throughput and clock speed than to raw memory bandwidth.

The Quadro also leads in rasterization throughput. Its 16 ROPs at 17.98 GPixel/s far exceed the Radeon's 8 ROPs at 8.240 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows suit: 24 TMUs at 26.98 GTexel/s versus 20 TMUs at 20.60 GTexel/s. Every major compute and fill-rate metric favors the Quadro, while the Radeon's only clear advantage is memory bandwidth and a newer PCIe generation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | AMD Radeon R5 M435 |

|----------------|-------------------|-------------------|

| Chip | GM107 | Jet |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) | Gem System (R5 M400) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 690 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 56 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1058 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1030 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 36.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 8.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.98 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 659.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 160 mm (6.3 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2016-05-14 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Polaris Mobile |

The process node is identical (28 nm, TSMC), but the transistor counts diverge sharply: 1,870 million versus 690 million. The Quadro's die is nearly three times larger at 148 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical (12.6M versus 12.3M per mm²), indicating similar manufacturing maturity but vastly different die budgets.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip on the GCN 1.0 architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process by TSMC, but the design philosophies differ significantly.

Maxwell is a compute-oriented architecture that emphasizes high clock speeds and efficient shading. The Quadro's base clock of 1058 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz are notably high for a 45 W part. GCN 1.0, by contrast, is an older design that relies on wider SIMD arrays but lower clocks; the Radeon's base of 780 MHz and boost of 1030 MHz reflect this. The Quadro's 384 shading units are organized into a configuration that yields 863.2 GFLOPS, while the Radeon's 320 units yield 659.2 GFLOPS.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The Quadro uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, prioritizing bus width over memory speed. The Radeon uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, prioritizing per-pin bandwidth. The result is that the Radeon achieves higher total bandwidth (36.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) despite having half the physical bus width. This is a meaningful distinction for bandwidth-sensitive workloads, but the compute benchmarks favor the Maxwell design.

The Radeon's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is a generation newer than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16, though the latter has twice the lanes. For most workloads, the practical bandwidth difference is negligible at these performance levels. The Radeon is also designated as an IGP (integrated GPU) with portable device dependent display outputs, indicating it is designed for laptops or compact systems. The Quadro is a single-slot desktop card with dedicated DVI and DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

API support is close but not identical. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the Radeon's 1.2.170. DirectX support is also slightly different: the Quadro lists 12 (11_0) while the Radeon lists 12 (11_1). The Radeon's newer release date (2016 versus 2014) does not translate into a compute advantage in the recorded data.

The transistor and die size differences are stark: 1,870 million transistors on 148 mm² versus 690 million on 56 mm². The Quadro dedicates far more silicon to compute resources, which is consistent with its 31% FP32 advantage and its 14.2% OpenCL win. The Radeon's smaller die and lower power footprint may appeal to ultra-portable designs, but in raw performance terms, the Maxwell architecture in the Quadro K620 is the definitive winner in this comparison.