AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two mobile GPUs into distinct roles. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M takes the only direct head-to-head benchmark win, scoring 5957 in Geekbench OpenCL against the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 5690, a 4.7% advantage. That single victory gives NVIDIA the edge in compute-oriented OpenCL workloads, which matters for professional applications that lean on general-purpose GPU acceleration.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X, however, counters with a capability the Quadro lacks entirely: a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631. The database shows no Vulkan result for the K620M, meaning the AMD part is the only one of the pair with measured API-level performance in that modern graphics interface. For users targeting Vulkan-based titles or workloads, the M260X at least has verified data behind it, while the Quadro's Vulkan support is documented but unmeasured.

Beyond the single head-to-head test, the broader benchmark averages tell a similar story. The K620M's average benchmark score sits at 5957, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The M260X averages 5161 across its two recorded tests, landing in the 30th percentile. The NVIDIA part occupies a slightly higher overall position in the database's distribution, though both sit in the lower third of all recorded GPUs, reflecting their entry-level mobile positioning.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Quadro K620M wins where raw OpenCL compute throughput matters, delivering a measured advantage in that specific API. The Radeon R7 M260X wins where API coverage matters, offering a Vulkan result that the Quadro cannot match in the database. Neither part dominates the other across the board; the choice depends on whether the workload leans toward OpenCL compute or Vulkan rendering.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but their underlying designs diverge sharply. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0. The transistor counts are close: 1,020 million for the NVIDIA part versus 950 million for the AMD part. Both die sizes are identical at 77 mm², but the density figures differ slightly, 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter for NVIDIA versus 12.3 million for AMD.

The shading unit counts match at 384 for both GPUs, but the surrounding hardware differs. The Quadro K620M carries 16 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs. The Radeon R7 M260X carries 24 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs. AMD's extra TMUs give it more texture-processing hardware, though the recorded texture rates tell a more nuanced story, which the head-to-head section covers.

Memory configurations represent one of the largest architectural gaps. The Quadro K620M pairs 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus with 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M260X pairs 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD's GDDR5 memory operates at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, while NVIDIA's DDR3 runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The Radeon offers four times the memory bandwidth, a significant advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Clock speeds also differ markedly. The Quadro K620M runs at a 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The Radeon R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. NVIDIA's substantially higher clocks help explain its compute throughput advantage despite similar core counts. The pixel rates reflect these clock differences: 8.992 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 5.720 GPixel/s for AMD. Texture rates are closer at 17.98 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, with AMD's extra TMUs partially compensating for its lower clock speed.

The interface and power delivery differ as well. The Quadro K620M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and a 30 W TDP, with no power connectors and the slot width listed as MXM Module. The Radeon R7 M260X uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, also with no power connectors, but the database records no TDP or slot width for it. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro released earlier on 2015-02-28 and the Radeon released later on 2015-12-05. The Quadro's predecessor and successor are both Quadro mobile generations, while the Radeon's lineage runs from Solar System to Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's 5690 in the same test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260X support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the database records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631 for the Radeon R7 M260X. No Vulkan benchmark score is recorded for the NVIDIA Quadro K620M, though its API list includes Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Radeon R7 M260X offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus. The Quadro K620M offers 16.02 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus. AMD's bandwidth is four times higher.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: Both GPUs have 384 shading units. The AMD part has 24 texture mapping units, while the NVIDIA part has 16.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M boosts to 1124 MHz, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X boosts to 715 MHz.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K620M averages 5957 across its single recorded benchmark, placing it in the 34th percentile. The Radeon R7 M260X averages 5161 across two benchmarks, placing it in the 30th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses GCN 1.0 with the Opal chip. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process, but transistor counts differ: 1,020 million for NVIDIA versus 950 million for AMD, resulting in transistor densities of 13.2 million per square millimeter and 12.3 million per square millimeter respectively.

Clock speeds show the largest gap. The Quadro K620M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the Radeon R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ in both frequency and effective speed: NVIDIA's DDR3 runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, while AMD's GDDR5 runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

Memory specifications favor AMD heavily. The Quadro K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, but texture mapping units differ at 16 for NVIDIA and 24 for AMD.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the clock and TMU differences. The Quadro produces 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s, while the Radeon produces 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors NVIDIA at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS for AMD. The Quadro's TDP is recorded at 30 W, while no TDP is listed for the Radeon.

Interface and API support differ as well. The Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. DirectX support is close, with the Quadro at 12 (11_0) and the Radeon at 12 (11_1). OpenGL support matches at 4.6 for both. Vulkan support differs: the Quadro lists 1.4, while the Radeon lists 1.2.170. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Release dates differ by about nine months, with the Quadro on 2015-02-28 and the Radeon on 2015-12-05.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690. The delta is 4.7% in NVIDIA's favor. This is a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. It suggests the Quadro's higher clock speeds and Maxwell architecture translate into better OpenCL compute throughput, despite AMD's superior memory bandwidth.

A 4.7% lead in OpenCL aligns with the FP32 compute figures. The Quadro K620M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS, while the Radeon R7 M260X delivers 549.1 GFLOPS, a 57% raw compute advantage for NVIDIA. The actual benchmark gap is smaller than the theoretical compute gap, which indicates that memory bandwidth plays a role in limiting the Quadro's OpenCL performance. AMD's 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus NVIDIA's 16.02 GB/s likely narrows what would otherwise be a larger score gap.

The texture throughput comparison is closer than the compute comparison. The Quadro produces 17.98 GTexel/s, and the Radeon produces 17.16 GTexel/s, a difference of less than 5%. AMD's 24 TMUs nearly compensate for its much lower clock speed, making texture-heavy workloads more competitive than compute-heavy ones. Pixel rate, however, favors NVIDIA clearly at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, a 57% advantage that mirrors the FP32 gap.

The Vulkan benchmark adds a second dimension, though not a direct head-to-head. The Radeon R7 M260X records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631. No Vulkan score exists for the Quadro K620M in the database. This absence means the Radeon has verified Vulkan performance data, while the Quadro's Vulkan capabilities remain unmeasured, despite its API list showing Vulkan 1.4 support. For anyone comparing Vulkan performance, the data favors AMD simply because it exists.

Nearest rival comparisons provide additional context. The Quadro K620M's OpenCL score of 5957 sits close to the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (even), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 (0.5% ahead). The Radeon R7 M260X's average score of 5161 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (1.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063 (1.9% ahead). These clusters show both GPUs performing within a tight band of their immediate competitors.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K620M for OpenCL compute workloads. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, scoring 4.7% higher than the Radeon R7 M260X in Geekbench OpenCL. It also delivers substantially higher FP32 compute at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS, higher pixel rate at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and a higher boost clock at 1124 MHz versus 715 MHz. Its 34th percentile ranking versus the Radeon's 30th percentile reflects this overall performance edge.

Choose the AMD Radeon R7 M260X for memory bandwidth and Vulkan coverage. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is four times the Quadro's 16.02 GB/s, a decisive advantage for bandwidth-bound workloads. Its 128 bit GDDR5 memory bus versus NVIDIA's 64 bit DDR3 bus is the clearest specification-level win in this comparison. The Radeon also has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 4631, while the Quadro has no Vulkan score in the database. Its 24 TMUs versus NVIDIA's 16 also give it more texture-processing hardware, even if the texture rate ends up nearly identical.

The data does not support a single universal winner. The Quadro K620M is the stronger compute part, with a higher OpenCL score, higher clock speeds, and higher calculated throughput in both pixel and FP32 terms. The Radeon R7 M260X is the stronger memory part, with four times the bandwidth and the only recorded Vulkan performance. Both are end-of-life mobile parts from the same 28 nm era, and both sit in the lower third of the database's GPU distribution. The correct pick depends entirely on whether the application leans on OpenCL compute or memory bandwidth and Vulkan support.