AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K620 and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, and in both cases the NVIDIA part emerges ahead. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro K620 scores 5870 against 4893 for the Radeon R7 M365X, a 20% advantage. This is a substantial gap for an API-level workload, indicating that the NVIDIA architecture extracts significantly more performance from the Vulkan driver stack than the AMD GCN 1.0 implementation.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the margin narrows but remains clearly in NVIDIA's favor. The Quadro K620 records 6693 points, while the Radeon R7 M365X manages 5939, yielding a 12.7% delta. The consistency of these results across both compute APIs suggests the difference is not a quirk of a single workload but rather a systemic performance characteristic. Across the two recorded benchmarks, the NVIDIA part wins 2 out of 2, with no benchmark in which the AMD part takes the lead.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K620's average benchmark score of 6282 places it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both scoring 6270, a mere 0.2% behind. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6327, putting it 0.7% ahead of the Quadro K620, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 6330, 0.8% ahead. The Quadro K620 thus sits in a tightly packed cluster where a handful of points separates it from several competitors, but in this head-to-head pairing it holds a definitive edge over the Radeon R7 M365X.

The Radeon R7 M365X, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 5416, placing it in the 32nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 610M at 5444 (0.5% ahead), the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370 (0.9% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.9% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358 (1.1% behind). The Radeon R7 M365X is therefore a mid-to-low-tier part relative to the full database, and it trails the Quadro K620 by a substantial 866 points on average, about 13.8% lower.

The delta between the two parts in the head-to-head Vulkan test (20%) is larger than the delta in the OpenCL test (12.7%). This pattern may reflect the maturity of NVIDIA's Vulkan implementation versus AMD's GCN 1.0 driver support, but the recorded data does not provide further granularity to confirm the cause. What is clear is that the NVIDIA part delivers a stronger result in both compute APIs, and the gap is not marginal.

For applications that rely on Vulkan compute or OpenCL workloads, the Quadro K620 offers a measurable performance advantage. The 20% Vulkan lead is particularly relevant for modern workloads that leverage this API, while the 12.7% OpenCL lead still represents a meaningful uplift for legacy compute tasks. There is no recorded benchmark where the Radeon R7 M365X closes the gap or overtakes the Quadro K620.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins with a score of 6693 versus 5939 for the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, a 12.7% advantage.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K620 scores 5870 while the Radeon R7 M365X scores 4893, giving NVIDIA a 20% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has an average benchmark score of 6282, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X averages 5416.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro K620 sits in the 36th percentile, while the Radeon R7 M365X sits in the 32nd percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is higher than the 28.80 GB/s of the NVIDIA Quadro K620, despite the K620 winning all compute benchmarks.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro K620 as the stronger performer in this pairing. Across both recorded benchmarks, it wins outright, and the average benchmark score difference of 866 points (6282 versus 5416) represents a significant margin. The Quadro K620 also holds a higher percentile ranking (36th versus 32nd), meaning it outranks the Radeon R7 M365X relative to the entire database of GPUs.

For users whose workloads depend on Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan compute performance, the Quadro K620 is the rational choice. The 12.7% OpenCL lead and the 20% Vulkan lead are both substantial enough to affect real-world application responsiveness and throughput. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the Radeon R7 M365X offers a performance advantage.

However, the Radeon R7 M365X does have one notable specification advantage: memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 implementation is more than double the 28.80 GB/s of the Quadro K620's DDR3 memory. This could matter for memory-bandwidth-bound workloads, but the benchmark data does not include any test that isolates this factor, and the overall compute scores still favor NVIDIA. If a workload is purely bandwidth-driven, the Radeon part might close the gap, but the recorded benchmarks do not support that conclusion.

The choice depends on the application profile. For general compute tasks measured by Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the superior option. For tasks that require maximum memory bandwidth, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X offers a theoretical edge, but the absence of a benchmark confirming this leaves it as an unverified possibility. The data as recorded favors the Quadro K620 without qualification.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification areas. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. Both have a 128-bit memory bus, but the memory clocks differ: the Quadro K620 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, while the Radeon R7 M365X runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed. This results in the Radeon's higher bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

The shading unit count is identical at 384 for both, and the texture mapping units are also equal at 24. The render output units differ: the Quadro K620 has 16 ROPs, while the Radeon R7 M365X has 8 ROPs. This halving of ROPs explains the pixel rate difference: the Quadro K620 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s, while the Radeon R7 M365X manages only 6.600 GPixel/s. The texture rates also differ, with the Quadro K620 at 26.98 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s for the Radeon.

The FP32 compute throughput is another differentiator: the Quadro K620 delivers 863.2 GFLOPS, while the Radeon R7 M365X delivers 633.6 GFLOPS. The clock speeds are not directly comparable because the Radeon R7 M365X has no base or boost clock recorded in the database, while the Quadro K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz.

The bus interfaces differ: the Quadro K620 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon R7 M365X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The power specifications also differ, with the Quadro K620 having a TDP of 45 W, a suggested PSU of 200 W, and no power connectors, while the Radeon R7 M365X has no TDP, PSU, or connector data recorded. The Quadro K620 is single-slot with dimensions of 160 mm length and 69 mm height, while the Radeon has no dimension data. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro K620 has 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon has no display output data recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Litho chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the Quadro K620 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon R7 M365X has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter.

The generation naming reflects different lineage paths. The Quadro K620 is listed under the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, despite being a Maxwell architecture part, while the Radeon R7 M365X belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation. The release dates differ by roughly nine months: the Quadro K620 was released in July 2014, while the Radeon R7 M365X was released in May 2015. Both are marked end-of-life, but their predecessors and successors differ: the Quadro K620 follows Quadro Fermi and precedes Quadro Maxwell, while the Radeon R7 M365X follows Solar System and precedes Polaris Mobile.

The API support shows some variation. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the specific DirectX feature levels differ: the Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon R7 M365X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Vulkan versions also differ: the Quadro K620 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon R7 M365X supports Vulkan 1.2.170. This newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA part may contribute to its 20% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores recorded in the database, and neither has FP16 performance listed. The Radeon R7 M365X lacks recorded clock speeds for base and boost, which limits direct clock-to-clock comparisons. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.6M versus 12.3M per mm²), suggesting both chips are similar in manufacturing efficiency, but the NVIDIA chip uses a larger die with more transistors to deliver higher compute throughput. The Radeon's higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) is its main architectural counterpoint, stemming from the GDDR5 memory type and higher effective clock speed.