AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results available for this comparison split cleanly, with each card taking one victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991, edging out the NVIDIA Quadro K620’s 6693 by a margin of 4.5%. That is a meaningful lead in a compute-oriented workload, suggesting the AMD card has a slight edge in general-purpose GPU compute tasks. However, the tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro K620 counters with a score of 5870 against the R7 M350’s 5662, winning by 3.5%. The data shows a near-perfect mirror image: each card leads by roughly 4 percentage points in its preferred API, and the overall average benchmark scores reflect that balance.

The average benchmark score for the R7 M350 is 6327, while the Quadro K620 sits at 6282. That difference of 45 points translates to a 0.7% gap in favor of the AMD part, according to the nearestRivals deltaPct data. Interestingly, both cards occupy the same 36th percentile among all GPUs, meaning neither is a standout performer in the broader landscape. The R7 M350’s nearest rival list includes the Quadro K620 with a deltaPct of 0.7%, and the Quadro K620’s list includes the R7 M350 with a deltaPct of -0.7%, confirming that these two are effectively peer products. The margin between them is so thin that benchmark variance could plausibly flip the order, yet the pattern of wins—one per test—hints at genuine architectural preferences rather than noise.

Architecture Differences

Beneath the surface, these two mobile-oriented GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, despite both being fabricated on a 28 nm process node at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses the Meso chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture. Both integrate 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, which explains why their raw throughput figures are in the same ballpark. However, the similarities end there. The R7 M350 pulls its transistor count from a smaller die: 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per mm². The Quadro K620 packs 1,870 million transistors onto a larger 148 mm² die, for a slightly higher density of 12.6 million per mm². That extra 320 million transistors gives NVIDIA more room for its different design choices.

Clock speeds diverge notably. The Quadro K620 runs at a base clock of 1058 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, whereas the R7 M350 operates at a 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part’s higher clocks contribute to its peak FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD card’s 779.5 GFLOPS. Memory architecture also differs substantially: the R7 M350 uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of DDR3 memory at 16.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K620 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card delivers nearly twice the memory bandwidth despite having half the capacity, which influences how each card handles data-heavy workloads. The R7 M350’s FP16 performance equals its FP32 at 779.5 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the Quadro K620 has no listed FP16 capability, reflecting Maxwell’s different compute priorities.

The two cards also differ in their API support and interface. The R7 M350 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro K620 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA card may explain its Vulkan benchmark win. The bus interface differs as well: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The R7 M350’s PCIe 3.0 support offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the Quadro K620’s wider x16 connection may compensate in practice. The Quadro K620 also has a listed TDP of 45 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while those fields are absent for the R7 M350, implying the AMD part may have different power characteristics but no data is provided to compare.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split suggests a clear use-case division. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins in OpenCL, which is a compute-oriented API commonly used for general-purpose GPU tasks like video encoding, physics simulations, and some machine learning workloads. Its 4.5% lead in that test indicates that for users running OpenCL-based applications, the R7 M350 is the stronger choice. The card’s larger 4 GB memory buffer also gives it an advantage in scenarios where capacity matters more than bandwidth, such as holding larger textures or datasets in local memory without spilling to system RAM.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins in Vulkan, a modern graphics API known for its efficiency in gaming and real-time rendering. Its 3.5% edge here suggests that for Vulkan-based workloads—whether games, CAD viewports, or other real-time 3D applications—the NVIDIA card delivers better performance. The Quadro K620’s higher memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s likely plays a role, as Vulkan workloads often require rapid data movement. Additionally, the Quadro’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the R7 M350’s 1.2.170 may provide access to newer features and optimizations. The NVIDIA card also has double the ROPs (16 vs. 8), resulting in a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s versus 8.12 GPixel/s for the AMD part, which could benefit fill-rate-bound rendering tasks.

For general productivity, the average benchmark scores are nearly indistinguishable—6327 for AMD versus 6282 for NVIDIA—so neither card offers a compelling overall advantage. The choice hinges on which API or workload type dominates a user’s specific usage. OpenCL-heavy workflows favor AMD; Vulkan-heavy workflows favor NVIDIA. The Quadro K620’s professional lineage, indicated by its display outputs of 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, suggests it was designed for workstation use, while the R7 M350’s mobile-oriented "Gem System (R7 M300)" generation points toward laptop integration, but the data does not provide explicit performance metrics for those scenarios beyond the two benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards reveal several differences beyond the core compute metrics. Memory capacity and bus width stand out: the R7 M350 offers 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit interface, while the Quadro K620 offers 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit interface. This is a direct tradeoff between capacity and bandwidth. The NVIDIA card’s memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) is lower than the AMD card’s 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), but the wider bus more than compensates, yielding 28.80 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s. The R7 M350’s base clock is 1000 MHz with a boost of 1015 MHz, while the Quadro K620 runs at 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, giving NVIDIA a 5.8% base clock advantage and a 10.7% boost clock advantage.

Pixel and texture rates also differ. The Quadro K620 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s and 26.98 GTexel/s, while the R7 M350 achieves 8.12 GPixel/s and 24.36 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is particularly stark—NVIDIA more than doubles AMD’s output—due to the Quadro’s 16 ROPs versus 8. Texture rates are closer, with NVIDIA leading by roughly 11%. The FP32 throughput favors NVIDIA at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS, a 10.7% difference. The R7 M350 matches its FP32 with FP16 at 779.5 GFLOPS, while the Quadro K620 has no FP16 listing. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA, though the practical impact depends on the system’s PCIe generation support.

Physical and power characteristics are only documented for the NVIDIA card. The Quadro K620 has a 45 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 200 W, and dimensions of 160 mm (6.3 inches) by 69 mm (2.7 inches). The R7 M350’s TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, and dimensions are all null in the data, so no comparison is possible. The release dates differ by about 10 months: the R7 M350 launched on May 4, 2015, while the Quadro K620 launched on July 21, 2014, making the AMD card the newer product. Both are end-of-life, with the R7 M350 succeeding the Solar System generation and preceding Polaris Mobile, while the Quadro K620 succeeds Quadro Fermi and precedes Quadro Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6327, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6282. The R7 M350 leads by 0.7% per the nearestRivals deltaPct.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The R7 M350 scores 6991 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Quadro K620’s 6693 by 4.5%. This is the AMD card’s sole benchmark win.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro K620 scores 5870 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the R7 M350’s 5662 by 3.5%. This is the NVIDIA card’s sole benchmark win.

Q: Do the cards have the same amount of memory?

A: No. The R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA card has higher bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: Both cards have exactly 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units. The difference lies in ROPs: the Quadro K620 has 16, while the R7 M350 has 8.

Q: What are the architecture and process node differences?

A: The R7 M350 uses GCN 3.0 architecture with the Meso chip, while the Quadro K620 uses Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two evenly matched cards with distinct strengths. For users whose workloads rely on OpenCL compute, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the better pick, offering a 4.5% performance advantage over the Quadro K620 in that specific test. Its larger 4 GB memory buffer is also valuable for applications that need more local storage for textures or datasets, even if the bandwidth is lower. The R7 M350’s support for DirectX 12 (12_0) and its PCIe 3.0 interface suggest it is slightly more modern in some respects, and its higher average benchmark score of 6327 confirms a marginal overall edge.

For users who prioritize Vulkan rendering, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the stronger choice. Its 3.5% lead in the Vulkan benchmark, combined with double the ROPs and nearly double the memory bandwidth, makes it better suited for real-time graphics work. The Quadro’s 45 W TDP and single-slot design also make it a more predictable candidate for constrained builds, though the R7 M350’s power data is absent. The NVIDIA card’s higher pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s versus 8.12 GPixel/s is a decisive factor for fill-rate-bound tasks.

Ultimately, the verdict depends on the application. Neither card dominates—the wins are 1-1, and the average scores are within 0.7% of each other. The R7 M350 suits OpenCL-heavy compute and memory-capacity-sensitive workloads; the Quadro K620 suits Vulkan-based rendering and bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Both sit at the 36th percentile among all GPUs, so neither is a performance leader. The choice comes down to which API and workload profile matters most, as the data firmly supports each card in its respective arena.