AMD Radeon R7 M365X vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single common benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the Radeon R7 M365X scores 5939. The margin is razor-thin, with the Quadro leading by just 0.3%. This is effectively a statistical tie, yet the database awards the win to NVIDIA based on the raw score.

The significance of this narrow margin becomes clearer when placed against each card's nearest rivals. The Quadro K620M sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5957. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, scores 5955, a delta of 0%. The Quadro trails the AMD Radeon HD 8750M by 0.2% (5970) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 by 0.4% (5982). It leads the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 0.5% (5929).

The Radeon R7 M365X, by contrast, occupies the 32nd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 5416. That average is dragged down by its second recorded test, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 4893. The OpenCL result of 5939 is its stronger showing. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 610M at 5444 (the R7 trails by 0.5%), the Intel UHD Graphics P630 at 5370 (the R7 leads by 0.9%), the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (the R7 trails by 0.9%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358 (the R7 leads by 1.1%).

The head-to-head data therefore presents a peculiar picture. In OpenCL, the two cards are nearly indistinguishable, with a 0.3% delta that falls well within typical run-to-run variance. Yet the overall average scores diverge sharply: the Quadro averages 5957, while the Radeon averages 5416, a gap of roughly 9.1%. This divergence stems not from the OpenCL test, but from the Radeon's Vulkan result, which is substantially lower. The Quadro has no Vulkan score in the database.

Benchmark results indicate that the Quadro K620M is the more consistent performer, with a single recorded score that aligns closely with its nearest rivals. The Radeon R7 M365X shows a split personality: competitive in OpenCL, but far weaker in Vulkan. For users prioritizing OpenCL workloads, the choice is essentially a coin flip. For Vulkan-based applications, the Radeon's 4893 score places it well behind its own OpenCL performance, suggesting a significant API-specific weakness.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark between the Quadro K620M and the Radeon R7 M365X?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins with a score of 5957, versus 5939 for the AMD Radeon R7 M365X, a margin of 0.3%.

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

A: The Quadro K620M has an average score of 5957, while the Radeon R7 M365X averages 5416. The Radeon's average is pulled down by its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4893.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K620M is within 0.5% of all four nearest rivals, ranging from 5929 (Intel UHD Graphics 730) to 5982 (NVIDIA Quadro K4000). The Radeon R7 M365X ranges from 5358 (AMD Radeon R7 M445) to 5467 (NVIDIA Quadro M4000), with deltas between -0.9% and +1.1%.

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro K620M ranks in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R7 M365X ranks in the 32nd percentile.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M365X have any benchmark advantage?

A: No, the Radeon loses the only head-to-head test. However, it does record a Vulkan score of 4893, a test the Quadro has no data for, though this score is well below the Radeon's own OpenCL result.

Q: What is the production status of both cards?

A: Both the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the AMD Radeon R7 M365X are marked as end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K620M as the better overall choice, but the margin is minimal. In the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Quadro leads by 0.3%, which is within noise. The more decisive factor is the average score: the Quadro's 5957 versus the Radeon's 5416 represents a 9.1% gap. This difference is driven entirely by the Radeon's weak Vulkan performance, which may matter little to users focused on OpenCL.

For OpenCL-centric workloads, either card performs nearly identically. The Quadro edges ahead by 18 points, a fraction of a percent. The Radeon's 128-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory deliver 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, four times the Quadro's 16.02 GB/s, which could benefit memory-intensive tasks even if the raw compute scores are similar. However, the Quadro counters with higher clock speeds: a base of 1029 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, versus the Radeon's unspecified base and boost clocks.

For Vulkan-based applications, the Radeon's 4893 score is a clear liability. The Quadro has no Vulkan score in the database, so its Vulkan performance is unknown, but the Radeon's score sits 17.6% below its own OpenCL result. This inconsistency makes the Radeon a riskier pick for mixed-API workloads.

The database records one win for the Quadro and zero for the Radeon. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K620M is the safer, more consistent option. The Radeon R7 M365X only makes sense if the specific workload heavily favors its memory bandwidth advantage, and even then, the measurable benchmark data does not show a corresponding performance benefit.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification, despite sharing the same process node and die size.

• Process Node: Both use 28 nm, but the Quadro packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2M / mm². The Radeon has 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die, for a density of 12.3M / mm².
• Memory Size: The Quadro has 2 GB of DDR3, while the Radeon has 1024 MB of GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: The Quadro uses a 64-bit bus, the Radeon a 128-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The Radeon delivers 64.00 GB/s, exactly four times the Quadro's 16.02 GB/s.
• Memory Clock: The Quadro's memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), the Radeon's at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Base Clock: The Quadro has a 1029 MHz base; the Radeon's base clock is not listed.
• Boost Clock: The Quadro boosts to 1124 MHz; the Radeon's boost clock is not listed.
• Shading Units: Both have 384, but the Radeon has 24 TMUs versus the Quadro's 16. Both have 8 ROPs.
• Pixel Rate: The Quadro achieves 8.992 GPixel/s, the Radeon 6.600 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The Radeon achieves 19.80 GTexel/s, the Quadro 17.98 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The Quadro delivers 863.2 GFLOPS, the Radeon 633.6 GFLOPS.
• TDP: The Quadro is rated at 30 W; the Radeon's TDP is not listed.
• Bus Interface: The Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0), the Radeon PCIe 3.0 x8.
• DirectX Support: The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), the Radeon DirectX 12 (11_1).
• Vulkan Support: The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, the Radeon Vulkan 1.2.170.
• Release Date: The Quadro launched on 2015-02-28, the Radeon on 2015-05-04.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Quadro K620M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip. The Radeon R7 M365X uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, with the chip codenamed Litho. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and both dies measure 77 mm², but the transistor counts differ: 1,020 million for NVIDIA versus 950 million for AMD.

The Maxwell design emphasizes higher clock speeds and superior raw compute per transistor. The Quadro's 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost clocks, combined with 384 shading units, produce 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The GCN 1.0 architecture in the Radeon, with the same 384 shading units but no listed clocks, delivers only 633.6 GFLOPS. This 26.6% gap in compute throughput is the defining architectural difference.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The Quadro pairs a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory, resulting in 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon pairs a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, achieving 64.00 GB/s. The Radeon's fourfold bandwidth advantage suggests a design aimed at memory-hungry workloads, while the Quadro's narrower bus prioritizes lower power consumption and simpler implementation.

The texture and pixel pipelines differ as well. The Radeon has 24 TMUs, producing a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s, while the Quadro's 16 TMUs yield 17.98 GTexel/s. However, the Quadro's pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s exceeds the Radeon's 6.600 GPixel/s, despite both having 8 ROPs. This indicates the Quadro's higher clocks drive pixel output more efficiently.

The GPU generations reflect different lineages: the Quadro is part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M) generation, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M and preceding Quadro Maxwell-M. The Radeon belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation, succeeding Solar System and preceding Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro released in February 2015 and the Radeon in May 2015.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K620M wins in compute-bound scenarios. Its FP32 output of 863.2 GFLOPS is 36.2% higher than the Radeon's 633.6 GFLOPS. The pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s exceeds the Radeon's 6.600 GPixel/s by 36.2% as well. The base and boost clocks of 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz, respectively, provide a solid foundation for these advantages. The 30 W TDP, while not directly comparable to the Radeon's unlisted figure, indicates a power-efficient design.

The Radeon R7 M365X wins in memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is exactly four times the Quadro's 16.02 GB/s. The 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory type make it better suited for textures and framebuffer operations that require rapid data movement. Its texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s also edges past the Quadro's 17.98 GTexel/s, a 10.1% advantage. The 24 TMUs versus the Quadro's 16 provide more texture-processing capacity.

The OpenCL benchmark shows no clear winner: the 0.3% delta is negligible. The Radeon's Vulkan score of 4893, however, gives it a recorded presence in that API, something the Quadro lacks entirely, though the score itself is low relative to the Radeon's OpenCL result.

In practical terms, the Quadro suits workloads that stress raw compute and pixel fill, such as moderate graphics rendering or compute shaders. The Radeon suits workloads that stress texture throughput and memory bandwidth, such as large texture sets or high-resolution framebuffers. The database's win count favors the Quadro, 1 to 0, but the underlying specs tell a more nuanced story: each card leads in different domains, and the choice depends on which bottleneck the target application hits first.