AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is a decisive win for the NVIDIA Quadro K620M. It scores 5,957 points against the AMD Radeon R7 M340's 4,932 points, a 20.8% advantage. This is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput, and it establishes the Quadro as the stronger GPU for OpenCL-accelerated workloads.

The AMD side does have a separate Vulkan benchmark result of 5,193 points, but there is no head-to-head Vulkan comparison available for the Quadro. The database only records a single OpenCL score for the NVIDIA part, so the cross-API picture is incomplete. Still, the OpenCL delta of 20.8% is the largest measured difference between these two mobile graphics processors, and it aligns with the broader percentile rankings.

The Quadro sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R7 M340 lands at the 30th percentile. That four-point percentile gap is modest, but the raw score difference is not trivial. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955 points, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970 points, -0.2%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982 points, -0.4%). The Radeon R7 M340, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5,063 points, 0% delta), the AMD FirePro W4170M (5,034 points, 0.6%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018 points, 0.9%). The Quadro's closest competitors are all slightly faster than it, while the Radeon's closest rivals are all slightly slower, which reinforces the performance hierarchy.

The delta between the two is also visible in their average benchmark scores. The Quadro averages 5,957 points across all recorded tests, while the Radeon averages 5,063 points. That 894-point gap represents the overall performance spread, not just a single-test anomaly. The OpenCL result alone accounts for most of it, but the direction is consistent.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 20.8%. That makes it the clear choice for any application that relies on OpenCL compute, such as video encoding, image processing, or scientific simulation. Its 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput is meaningfully higher than the Radeon's 653.4 GFLOPS, and that raw floating-point capability directly translates into the OpenCL score advantage. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s versus 8.168 GPixel/s), which helps in tasks that involve heavy framebuffer operations or compositing.

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the database, but it does have strengths that the numbers hint at. Its texture rate is higher at 20.42 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s for the Quadro, which suggests it could be more efficient in texture-bound workloads, even if those workloads are not captured in the recorded OpenCL test. The Radeon also has a Vulkan score of 5,193 points, which is 261 points higher than its OpenCL score; this indicates that its GCN 3.0 architecture responds well to Vulkan's lower-overhead API model. If a Vulkan head-to-head were available, the gap might close, but the database does not provide that comparison.

For pure compute and professional rendering, the Quadro is the winner. For API-specific workloads that favor Vulkan or texture-heavy scenes, the Radeon could be competitive, but the recorded data does not currently support a win for it. The wins column shows 1 for the Quadro and 0 for the Radeon, and that is the objective outcome of the measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R7 M340 uses the Meso chip, based on GCN 3.0, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both are manufactured by the same foundry on the same node, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The Radeon packs 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, while the Quadro has just 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. That gives the Quadro a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² versus 12.4M per mm² for the Radeon.

The shader configuration differs significantly. The Quadro has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro's extra 64 shading units explain its higher FP32 throughput, while the Radeon's extra 4 TMUs explain its higher texture rate. The ROP counts are identical, and the pixel rates are close, but the Quadro still edges ahead on that metric.

Memory subsystems are nearly identical on paper. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with 2 Gbps effective memory speed. The Quadro's bandwidth is 16.02 GB/s, and the Radeon's is 16.00 GB/s, a negligible 0.02 GB/s difference. The memory clock is 1,001 MHz for the Quadro and 1,000 MHz for the Radeon, so there is no practical separation in memory performance.

Feature support differs in the API list. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level on the Radeon (12_0 versus 11_0) is notable, but the Quadro's newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170) suggests better long-term driver support for that API. The Radeon also has FP16 throughput listed at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability, which could matter for half-precision compute workloads.

The bus interfaces are different as well. The Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This reflects their intended deployment contexts: the Quadro is a modular mobile workstation GPU, while the Radeon is a more conventional embedded mobile part. The Quadro's TDP is 30 W, while the Radeon's TDP is not recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is faster, scoring 5,957 points versus 4,932 points for the AMD Radeon R7 M340, a 20.8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M340 have any benchmark where it beats the Quadro?

A: No. The database records only one head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and the Quadro wins it. The Radeon has a separate Vulkan score of 5,193, but no Vulkan comparison with the Quadro exists.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their closest rivals?

A: The Quadro's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M with a 0% delta, while the Radeon R7 M340's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 240, also with a 0% delta. The Quadro's other rivals are slightly faster (up to -0.4% delta), while the Radeon's other rivals are slightly slower (up to +1.3% delta).

Q: What explains the Quadro's higher OpenCL score?

A: The Quadro has more shading units (384 versus 320), a higher boost clock (1,124 MHz versus 1,021 MHz), and a higher FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS). These factors directly contribute to OpenCL compute performance.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 2 Gbps effective speed. The Quadro's bandwidth is 16.02 GB/s, and the Radeon's is 16.00 GB/s, which is effectively identical.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0) while the Quadro only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K620M | AMD Radeon R7 M340 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 3.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M) | Gem System (R7 M300) |

| Chip | GM108S | Meso |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1,029 MHz | 943 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,124 MHz | 1,021 MHz |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 16 | 20 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 8.168 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 20.42 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 653.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015-02-28 | 2015-05-04 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Polaris Mobile |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K620M. Its 20.8% OpenCL advantage, higher FP32 throughput, and larger shading unit count make it the stronger choice for any application that leverages general-purpose GPU compute. The Quadro also has a higher percentile ranking (34th versus 30th), which places it ahead of a larger share of the GPU population in the database.

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 is not without merit. Its higher texture rate (20.42 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s) and newer DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0) give it advantages in specific scenarios, and its Vulkan score of 5,193 points suggests it handles that API better than its OpenCL performance implies. However, the database records no head-to-head win for the Radeon, and its overall average benchmark score of 5,063 points is 894 points below the Quadro's 5,957.

For users who prioritize OpenCL compute, professional rendering, or FP32 throughput, the Quadro is the data-backed pick. For users who value texture processing or plan to run Vulkan-based workloads, the Radeon offers competitive features, but the measured performance gap in the sole head-to-head test is too large to ignore. The verdict from the numbers is straightforward: the Quadro wins the recorded comparison, and the Radeon's strengths remain theoretical until a matching benchmark proves otherwise.