AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M delivers a decisive 17.7% higher score than the AMD Radeon R7 240. The Quadro K620M records 5957 points, while the Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 points. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload, indicating that the Quadro K620M has a clear advantage in OpenCL performance.

The database places the Quadro K620M at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile. The four-point percentile gap underscores the performance separation between these two end-of-life parts.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context. The Quadro K620M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, with an average score of 5955, a negligible 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982, putting it 0.4% ahead of the K620M. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 trails by 0.5% with 5929 points. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M is 0.2% ahead at 5970. These results show the K620M sits in a tight cluster of comparable mobile and low-power GPUs, all within a roughly one percent band.

For the Radeon R7 240, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which matches its 5063 score exactly. The AMD FirePro W4170M is 0.6% behind at 5034, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 trails by 0.9% at 5018, and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is 1.3% lower at 4998. The R7 240 leads its immediate peer group, but that group sits well below the K620M's performance tier.

The 17.7% delta between the two reviewed cards is far larger than any gap within their respective rival clusters. This indicates that the performance difference is not a minor statistical variation but a real, measurable advantage for the NVIDIA part. The Quadro K620M's score of 5957 places it firmly in a higher performance class than the Radeon R7 240's 5063.

Architecture Differences

The two cards originate from different architectural generations. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation. The AMD Radeon R7 240 employs the Oland chip, based on GCN 1.0, from the Volcanic Islands generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, but their underlying designs diverge significantly.

Transistor counts and die sizes reveal the design philosophies. The Quadro K620M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The Radeon R7 240 contains 950 million transistors in the same 77 mm² die size, with a lower density of 12.3 million per mm². The Maxwell architecture's higher density suggests a more compact or efficiently organized design.

Clock speeds differ notably. The Quadro K620M runs at a 1029 MHz base clock and boosts to 1124 MHz. The Radeon R7 240 operates at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card's clocks are substantially higher, a 41% advantage at base and a 44% advantage at boost. The memory clocks also favor NVIDIA: 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the K620M versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 240.

The memory subsystems take different approaches. Both cards have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the bus widths differ. The Quadro K620M uses a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 240 uses a 128-bit bus, doubling the width and achieving 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the K620M's higher memory clock partially compensates, but the R7 240 still holds an 80% bandwidth advantage.

Compute resources are allocated differently. The Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The Radeon R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. NVIDIA's card has 20% more shaders, while AMD's card has 25% more texture units. The ROP count is identical at eight.

The resulting fill rates and compute throughput favor the Quadro K620M. The NVIDIA card achieves 8.992 GPixel/s pixel rate and 17.98 GTexel/s texture rate, with 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Radeon R7 240 delivers 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s, with 499.2 GFLOPS FP32. The FP32 gap is particularly large: the K620M offers 73% more single-precision compute throughput.

API support shows a split. The Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan version, while the AMD card has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

Physical specifications differ in form factor. The Quadro K620M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, designed for portable devices with device-dependent display outputs. The Radeon R7 240 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. Both cards draw 30 W TDP and require no power connectors, though the R7 240 lists a 200 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K620M is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its 17.7% higher OpenCL score, combined with superior FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute workloads. The higher clock speeds, more shading units, and denser transistor layout all contribute to this advantage. The K620M's newer Vulkan 1.4 support also gives it an edge in applications that leverage this API.

The Radeon R7 240 has specific advantages in memory bandwidth and texture throughput. Its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is 80% higher than the K620M's 16.02 GB/s, which can benefit memory-bound workloads. The 20 TMUs versus 16 provide a 25% advantage in texture fill rate, though the K620M's higher clock speed narrows the actual texture rate gap to 15.3% (17.98 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s). The R7 240 also has a wider 128-bit memory bus, which can be advantageous for certain access patterns.

For desktop use, the Radeon R7 240 offers standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.4a, VGA) and a single-slot form factor that fits in conventional desktop cases. The Quadro K620M is designed for mobile workstations via MXM modules, with display outputs dependent on the host device. The R7 240's PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is standard for desktop motherboards, while the K620M requires a compatible MXM slot.

The Radeon R7 240's DirectX 12 (11_1) support is marginally ahead of the K620M's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for specific gaming or graphics applications that require the higher feature level. However, the K620M's overall performance advantage likely outweighs this in most scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.7% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 240's score of 5063 points.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Radeon R7 240 has a 128-bit memory bus providing 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K620M has a 64-bit bus providing 16.02 GB/s. The R7 240 offers 80% more bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each card?

A: The Quadro K620M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The Radeon R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, while the Radeon R7 240 has 320. The NVIDIA card has 20% more shading units.

Q: What are the FP32 compute capabilities?

A: The Quadro K620M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 499.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon R7 240. The K620M is 73% faster in this metric.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12 and Vulkan?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 and Vulkan. The Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon R7 240 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 240 by 17.7% in the recorded OpenCL test, and its FP32 compute advantage of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS reinforces this result. The K620M also holds the higher percentile ranking at 34 versus 30.

Users requiring maximum compute performance in a low-power (30 W) package should choose the Quadro K620M. Its higher clock speeds, more shading units, and 73% FP32 advantage make it the stronger compute engine. The newer Vulkan 1.4 support and higher transistor density further support this choice. The K620M's nearest rivals, including the Quadro K4000 and Radeon HD 8750M, all sit within 0.4% of its score, confirming it is well-positioned in its performance class.

The Radeon R7 240 is the better option for workloads that depend heavily on memory bandwidth. Its 80% higher bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s) and wider 128-bit bus can benefit certain data-intensive tasks. The additional texture units (20 versus 16) and the slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) are secondary advantages. The R7 240 also offers standard desktop display outputs and a conventional PCIe slot interface.

For a desktop system requiring a simple, low-profile graphics card with standard connectivity, the Radeon R7 240 fits the role. For a mobile workstation or any environment where compute performance is the priority, the Quadro K620M is the superior choice. The database shows no scenario where the R7 240's advantages in bandwidth or texture units overcome the K620M's substantial lead in raw compute throughput. The Quadro K620M is the faster card, and the 17.7% benchmark delta reflects a genuine performance gap.