AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has a higher average benchmark score of 7557, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K620's average of 6282. This places the AMD part in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits in the 36th percentile.

Q: In the recorded head-to-head test, what was the performance gap?

A: The database shows a single head-to-head benchmark result in Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 250 scored 7557 against the Quadro K620's 6693, giving AMD a 12.9% win. The AMD card wins 1 benchmark, while the NVIDIA card wins 0.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: Both cards use DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with identical bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. However, the capacity differs: the AMD Radeon R7 250 has 1024 MB (1 GB), while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 has 2 GB.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has a lower TDP of 45 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 leads in pixel rate at 17.98 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for AMD. However, the AMD Radeon R7 250 leads in texture rate at 29.60 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Q: What API levels does each card support?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 250 is built on the Cape Verde chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, listed under the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the AMD chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the NVIDIA chip packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

The transistor density is similar, with AMD at 12.2 million transistors per mm² and NVIDIA at 12.6 million per mm². The compute resources diverge substantially. The AMD Radeon R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has fewer of each: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Interestingly, despite fewer shading units, the NVIDIA card achieves a higher pixel rate, which suggests differences in the efficiency of the rasterization pipeline.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD card does not report base or boost clock values in the database, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The NVIDIA card has explicit base and boost clocks of 1058 MHz and 1124 MHz respectively, with the same memory clock of 900 MHz. The floating-point throughput reflects the shading unit counts: the AMD card delivers 947.2 GFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA card delivers 863.2 GFLOPS. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The bus interface differs as well: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ, with AMD offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while NVIDIA offers 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The AMD card is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long, while the NVIDIA card is 160 mm (6.3 inches) long and also has a recorded height of 69 mm (2.7 inches). Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 947.2 GFLOPS exceeds the NVIDIA card's 863.2 GFLOPS by a meaningful margin. This advantage is reflected in the texture rate as well: 29.60 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. For workloads that are shader-bound or texture-heavy, such as OpenCL compute tasks, the AMD card holds the edge. Its higher shading unit count (512 vs 384) gives it more parallel execution resources, which is directly visible in the 12.9% OpenCL benchmark win.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins in pixel processing efficiency and power efficiency. Its pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s is higher than the AMD card's 14.80 GPixel/s, despite having the same number of ROPs (16). This suggests the Maxwell architecture's rasterizer is more efficient at filling pixels. The NVIDIA card also draws less power: 45 W TDP versus 55 W, with a lower suggested PSU wattage (200 W vs 250 W). For users with constrained power budgets or smaller power supplies, the NVIDIA card is the more economical choice in terms of system requirements.

The NVIDIA card also offers double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB), which can matter for workloads that need more frame buffer space, even though the memory bandwidth is identical. For professional applications where the Quadro brand is relevant and where OpenGL compatibility is key, the NVIDIA card supports the same OpenGL 4.6 version as AMD but adds a newer Vulkan 1.4 API compared to AMD's Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card also supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a slightly higher feature level.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several specification fields. The AMD Radeon R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses GM107 with Maxwell architecture. The transistor counts differ: 1,500 million for AMD versus 1,870 million for NVIDIA. Die sizes are 123 mm² for AMD and 148 mm² for NVIDIA, with transistor densities of 12.2M / mm² and 12.6M / mm² respectively.

Clock specifications: AMD does not list base or boost clocks, while NVIDIA lists a 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory clocks are identical at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory capacity differs: 1024 MB for AMD versus 2 GB for NVIDIA. Both use DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute unit counts differ: AMD has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; NVIDIA has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 14.80 GPixel/s for AMD and 17.98 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rates are 29.60 GTexel/s for AMD and 26.98 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance is 947.2 GFLOPS for AMD and 863.2 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power characteristics: AMD has a 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU; NVIDIA has a 45 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU. Both are single-slot with no power connectors. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs: AMD offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2; NVIDIA offers 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support differs: AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170; NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Physical dimensions: AMD is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long; NVIDIA is 160 mm (6.3 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) tall. Release dates differ: AMD released on 2013-10-07, NVIDIA on 2014-07-21. Both are end-of-life, with AMD's predecessor being Sea Islands and successor being Pirate Islands, while NVIDIA's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 250 scores 7557, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693. The AMD card wins with a 12.9% performance advantage. This is a substantial margin, given that both cards were aimed at similar entry-level market positions.

To put this in context, the AMD card's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 with an average score of 7550 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 at 7580 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7472 (1.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7447 (1.5% behind). The AMD R7 250 sits comfortably among these, essentially tied with the Arc A310 and slightly ahead of the GTX 1650.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620's nearest rivals present a different picture. Its average score of 6282 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 also at 6270 (0.2% behind). It is 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327) and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330). This grouping indicates that the Quadro K620's performance level is markedly lower than the R7 250's, and the 12.9% gap in the direct comparison is consistent with their respective percentiles: 41st for AMD versus 36th for NVIDIA.

The AMD card's FP32 advantage of 947.2 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS is a 9.7% theoretical difference, which aligns with the observed 12.9% benchmark gap when accounting for real-world efficiencies. The NVIDIA card's higher pixel rate (17.98 vs 14.80 GPixel/s, a 21.5% advantage) does not translate into a benchmark win in this OpenCL test, suggesting that the workload favors compute throughput over pixel fill. The texture rate advantage for AMD (29.60 vs 26.98 GTexel/s, a 9.7% lead) reinforces the compute-oriented nature of the benchmark.

Overall, the data shows a clear hierarchy: the AMD Radeon R7 250 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K620 in the recorded OpenCL workload, while the Quadro K620 offers better power efficiency and double the memory capacity. The benchmark results indicate that for compute-heavy tasks, the AMD card is the stronger performer, while the NVIDIA card may be preferable for power-constrained systems with memory-hungry workloads.