AMD Radeon R7 M440 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data is decisive in one direction. Across the two shared tests in the database, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins both, with an overall win count of two against zero for the AMD Radeon R7 M440. The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy: the Quadro K620 sits at 6282, while the Radeon R7 M440 trails at 5483, a gap of roughly 14.6 percent. In percentile terms, the Quadro K620 ranks in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Radeon R7 M440 lands in the 32nd percentile. This is not a close contest; the data consistently places the Quadro K620 ahead.

Who should pick which? Given the numbers, the Quadro K620 is the logical choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, where it leads by a substantial margin. The Radeon R7 M440, however, offers a larger memory pool at 4 GB compared to the Quadro's 2 GB, which could matter for tasks that are capacity-bound rather than throughput-bound. The Radeon also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) fully, while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). For a user with a portable device that requires a low-profile, integrated-style GPU, the Radeon R7 M440 is the only one of the two that fits that form factor. But for sheer performance per the recorded scores, the Quadro K620 is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 uses the Meso chip, built on GCN 3.0, also fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm node. Both share the same process node and foundry, but their internal designs diverge significantly.

Transistor counts differ. The Quadro K620 packs 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R7 M440 has 1,550 million transistors on a smaller die of 125 mm², resulting in a density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro has a slightly higher transistor density, but the architectural layout is what drives the performance gap.

Shading unit counts also separate them. The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Radeon R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 20 percent advantage in shading units for the Quadro, and a 100 percent advantage in ROPs. The Radeon does have one notable feature: it supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, with a rating of 570.2 GFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16, whereas the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. The Quadro's FP32 output is 863.2 GFLOPS, which is 51 percent higher than the Radeon's 570.2 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3, achieving 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of DDR3, but only reaches 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. That is exactly half the memory bandwidth of the Quadro, a critical limitation for any memory-intensive workload. Clock speeds are partially listed: the Quadro has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, while the Radeon's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. Both share the same memory clock of 900 MHz, translating to 1800 Mbps effective.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620, with an average benchmark score of 6282, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M440's 5483.

Q: What is the difference in OpenCL performance between the two?

A: The Quadro K620 scores 6693 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon R7 M440 scores 5214. The Quadro leads by 28.4 percent.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M440 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the Radeon R7 M440 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory, double the 2 GB found on the Quadro K620.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro K620 scores 5870 in Geekbench Vulkan, marginally ahead of the Radeon's 5751, a difference of 2.1 percent.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The Quadro K620 is a single-slot card with dimensions of 160 mm by 69 mm, while the Radeon R7 M440 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no listed dimensions, designed for portable devices.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show clear divergences in nearly every compute-relevant field. The Quadro K620 has more shading units (384 vs 320), more TMUs (24 vs 20), and more ROPs (16 vs 8). The Radeon R7 M440 has more memory (4 GB vs 2 GB) but a narrower bus (64 bit vs 128 bit) and half the bandwidth (14.40 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s). The Quadro's pixel rate is 17.98 GPixel/s versus the Radeon's 7.128 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 26.98 GTexel/s versus 17.82 GTexel/s. FP32 performance favors the Quadro at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 570.2 GFLOPS. The Radeon has a listed FP16 rate of 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no FP16 entry.

Power and interface details also differ. The Quadro has a TDP of 45 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, with no power connectors required. The Radeon's TDP and PSU suggestions are not recorded. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are distinct: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro is 160 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the Radeon has no dimensions listed. Both are marked as end-of-life, with the Quadro released in 2014 and the Radeon in 2016. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell; the Radeon's predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two head-to-head benchmark results. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693 against the AMD Radeon R7 M440's 5214. This is a 28.4 percent advantage for the Quadro, the largest delta in either test. The second is Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro scores 5870 and the Radeon scores 5751, a much narrower 2.1 percent lead for the Quadro. In both cases, the Quadro wins, giving it a clean sweep of two wins and zero losses.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context. The Quadro K620's average score of 6282 places it within 0.2 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both of which average 6270. It is also 0.7 percent behind the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327) and 0.8 percent behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330). The Radeon R7 M440's average score of 5483 is 0.3 percent ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467), 0.3 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), 0.5 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508), and 0.7 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon 610M (5444). These delta percentages show that both GPUs sit in a tightly packed mid-range cluster, but the Quadro sits at the higher end of that cluster.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its OpenCL advantage of 28.4 percent is substantial and indicates a clear edge in compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL, such as certain rendering, simulation, or data-processing workloads. Its Vulkan win, though smaller at 2.1 percent, still shows superiority in that API. The Quadro also wins on raw throughput metrics: its pixel rate is 2.5 times higher than the Radeon's, and its texture rate is 1.5 times higher. For any workload that relies on fill rate, texture sampling, or memory bandwidth, the Quadro is the stronger choice by a wide margin.

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has no benchmark wins, but it does have structural advantages that could matter in specific scenarios. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the Quadro's 2 GB, which could be beneficial for workloads that need to hold larger datasets in VRAM, even if the bandwidth is halved. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) is more complete than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for games or applications that require the newer feature level. Its FP16 capability at a 1:1 ratio suggests potential for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, though the database does not include a specific FP16 benchmark. Finally, its form factor as an IGP with no power connectors and no listed TDP makes it suitable for portable devices, whereas the Quadro is a single-slot card with a 45 W TDP and a 200 W suggested PSU. For a laptop or compact system where space and power are constrained, the Radeon is the only viable option between the two. But for performance as recorded, the Quadro K620 dominates the head-to-head comparison.