AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M and AMD Radeon R5 M435 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at different priorities: the former at professional ISV workloads, the latter at general consumer multimedia. Benchmark data from Geekbench OpenCL shows a narrow victory for the NVIDIA part, but the underlying specifications tell a more nuanced story about where each chip excels.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures raw compute throughput across a variety of workloads. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859 points. This gives the NVIDIA part a 1.7% lead. That is a slim margin — effectively a statistical tie in real-world terms, but the data unequivocally names the Quadro K620M the winner in this head-to-head.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Quadro K620M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5957. Its closest competitors include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2% delta). The data shows the Quadro K620M is essentially dead-even with those older AMD parts, and only 0.5% faster than the integrated Intel UHD Graphics 730.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435, meanwhile, occupies the 33rd percentile with an average score of 5859. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841, 0.3% delta) and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929, -1.2% delta). Notably, the R5 M435 trails the Quadro K620M by 1.6% when compared directly, which matches the 1.7% delta in the head-to-head data.

The key takeaway from the numbers is that neither card is a powerhouse. Both score in the low-5000s range on Geekbench OpenCL, and both sit near the bottom third of all GPUs ever benchmarked. The Quadro K620M’s win is real but marginal — a difference of 98 points out of nearly 6000. For any task that relies on OpenCL compute, the two cards should feel nearly interchangeable, with the NVIDIA part holding a slight edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859. The Quadro leads by 1.7%.

Q: How do these cards compare to their immediate rivals?

A: The Quadro K620M is within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 8730M and HD 8750M, and 0.5% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 730. The Radeon R5 M435 is 0.3% ahead of the Radeon R7 M465 but 1.2% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses GDDR5 memory with a 64-bit bus, delivering 36.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses DDR3 with the same 64-bit bus, offering just 16.02 GB/s. The AMD part has more than double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the compute capabilities of each chip?

A: The Quadro K620M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon R5 M435 delivers 659.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is roughly 31% higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The AMD part has a slightly higher feature level.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The NVIDIA GM108S chip packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the AMD Jet chip has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The NVIDIA part has a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

The Verdict

The data points to a clear if narrow winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K620M. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, delivers higher FP32 compute (863.2 GFLOPS vs 659.2 GFLOPS), and has a slightly better percentile ranking (34th vs 33rd). For any workload that is compute-bound — OpenCL acceleration, GPGPU tasks, or professional applications that leverage CUDA cores — the Quadro K620M is the safer choice.

However, the AMD Radeon R5 M435 is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory provides 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the Quadro’s 16.02 GB/s. That is a massive difference that the benchmark data does not fully capture. For tasks that are memory-bandwidth-limited — such as texture-heavy workloads, certain image processing, or gaming at lower resolutions — the AMD card could actually perform better despite its lower compute score. The R5 M435 also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a slightly newer feature level than the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0).

The practical verdict is that most users should pick the Quadro K620M for its compute lead and professional lineage. But if your specific application is hungry for memory bandwidth rather than raw FLOPs, the Radeon R5 M435’s GDDR5 advantage is worth serious consideration. Neither card is a modern gaming solution; both are end-of-life parts best suited for legacy systems or light workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses a GM108S chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, containing 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This gives the NVIDIA part a higher transistor density: 13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the NVIDIA card at the base level. The Quadro K620M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The Radeon R5 M435 starts lower at 780 MHz base but boosts to 1030 MHz. Memory clocks differ significantly: the Quadro uses 1001 MHz DDR3 (2 Gbps effective), while the Radeon uses 1125 MHz GDDR5 (4.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is where the AMD card pulls ahead. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 64-bit bus, but the Radeon’s GDDR5 delivers 36.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the Quadro’s 16.02 GB/s. Shading unit counts favor NVIDIA (384 vs 320), but the Radeon has more texture mapping units (20 vs 16). Both have 8 ROPs.

Compute rates reflect the architectural differences. The Quadro K620M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s pixel rate and 17.98 GTexel/s texture rate, with 863.2 GFLOPS FP32. The Radeon R5 M435 manages 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s, with 659.2 GFLOPS FP32. The NVIDIA part wins on pixels and FP32, while the AMD part wins on texture fill rate.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro K620M has a 30 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, requiring no power connectors. The Radeon R5 M435 has no listed TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and also has no power connectors. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM108S chip. It is listed as part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M) generation, which is something of a transitional label. Maxwell was designed for efficiency and improved compute performance per clock compared to the older Kepler architecture. The chip’s 384 shading units are arranged in a configuration that emphasizes FP32 throughput, which explains its strong 863.2 GFLOPS figure.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, belonging to the Gem System (R5 M400) generation. GCN 1.0 was AMD’s first unified shader architecture, designed with compute workloads in mind. Its 320 shading units are organized into compute units that can handle both graphics and general-purpose tasks. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a slightly higher feature level than the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0).

The memory subsystems reflect different design philosophies. The Quadro pairs its Maxwell cores with slow DDR3, which severely limits bandwidth. The Radeon uses GDDR5, which is standard for performance-oriented GPUs. This is the single biggest architectural difference in practical terms — the NVIDIA part has more compute horsepower but is starved for data, while the AMD part has less compute but feeds it faster.

Both chips are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the NVIDIA die is larger (77 mm² vs 56 mm²) and denser (13.2M transistors per mm² vs 12.3M). The NVIDIA part also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170), while both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M; the Radeon’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins in raw compute. Its 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 is 31% higher than the Radeon’s 659.2 GFLOPS, and it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 1.7%. This makes it the better choice for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration, video encoding, scientific simulations, or any workload that leverages the shading units for general-purpose math. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s), which could benefit fill-rate-limited scenarios like high-resolution texture writes or certain post-processing effects.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins on memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 36.00 GB/s, which is 125% higher than the Quadro’s 16.02 GB/s. This is a decisive advantage for texture-heavy workloads, large framebuffer operations, or any task that streams large amounts of data through the GPU. The Radeon also has a higher texture rate (20.60 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s), meaning it can sample and apply textures faster. This makes it the better choice for gaming at low settings, image filtering, or other bandwidth-bound tasks.

The AMD part also has a slight API edge with DirectX 12 (11_1) support versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0). In practice, this means better compatibility with newer games that require 11_1 features, though both are limited by their modest compute power.

The Quadro’s 30 W TDP and MXM module form factor make it suitable for upgradeable laptops with MXM slots, while the Radeon’s IGP design suggests it is soldered onto the motherboard and not replaceable. For users with a specific system, this form factor difference may dictate the choice more than any benchmark score. In short: pick the Quadro K620M for compute and professional workloads, pick the Radeon R5 M435 for bandwidth-sensitive tasks and slightly better API support.