Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 records an average benchmark score of 7441, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282, sitting in the 36th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 6743 versus 6693 for the Quadro K620, a 0.7% margin in favor of the Intel part.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is decisively ahead in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 8138 against 5870 for the Quadro K620. That is a 38.6% lead.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU in the database?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 sits near the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, -0.1%), AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425, 0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, -0.4%), and Intel Arc A310 (7550, -1.4%). The Quadro K620 is near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, 0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270, 0.2%), AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, -0.7%), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330, -0.8%).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 delivers 17.98 GPixel/s, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 reaches 10.40 GPixel/s. The Quadro is roughly 73% faster in pixel throughput.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is built on Intel's Rocket Lake chip using the Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the HD Graphics (Rocket Lake) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, though the chip itself is Maxwell-based.

The Intel part integrates 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA card a clear advantage in raw compute resource count: 50% more shading units, 50% more TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Transistor counts differ significantly. The Quadro K620 packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 750 does not have transistor or die size figures recorded in the database, so a direct density comparison is not possible.

Clock behavior diverges as well. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 runs at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost up to 1300 MHz. The Quadro K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, a much narrower spread. The Intel part relies on a larger boost delta to reach its peak, while the NVIDIA card operates closer to its maximum frequency at all times.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 shares system memory with no dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is system dependent. The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory gives the Quadro deterministic performance that does not depend on the host system's RAM configuration.

The Intel GPU connects via Ring Bus, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs on the Intel part are motherboard dependent, whereas the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The Intel GPU is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

API support shows a subtle difference. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. For DirectX, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 supports version 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K620 supports version 12 (11_0), a lower feature level.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins in both recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its advantage in Geekbench OpenCL is narrow at 0.7%, but in Geekbench Vulkan it extends to 38.6%. The data suggests the Intel part has a substantial lead in modern API workloads, particularly Vulkan, which tends to expose driver efficiency and architecture-level throughput.

The Quadro K620's strengths lie elsewhere. It has a higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (26.98 GTexel/s versus 20.80 GTexel/s). It also delivers more FP32 compute at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 665.6 GFLOPS for the Intel part. These metrics indicate that in raw fill-rate-bound or compute-bound scenarios, the Quadro can outperform the Intel GPU despite losing in the recorded application benchmarks.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 benefits from system shared memory, which can be advantageous in bandwidth-limited workloads if the host system has fast RAM. However, this is system dependent, so real-world results will vary. The Quadro's dedicated 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is fixed and predictable.

For users running Vulkan-based applications, the Intel part is clearly the better choice based on the 38.6% benchmark lead. For those relying on OpenCL, the margin is negligible. The Quadro's higher pixel and texture rates suggest it may handle certain traditional rasterization workloads better, but the database does not include gaming or professional application benchmarks to confirm this.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 14 nm+++ for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and boost of 1300 MHz; the Quadro has 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory size is system shared for Intel versus 2 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type is system shared versus DDR3. Bus width is system shared versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is system dependent versus 28.80 GB/s.

Shading units: 256 versus 384. TMUs: 16 versus 24. ROPs: 8 versus 16. Pixel rate: 10.40 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 20.80 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. FP32: 665.6 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. FP16: the Intel part supports 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no FP16 data recorded.

TDP: 15 W for Intel versus 45 W for NVIDIA. Slot width: IGP versus single-slot. Power connectors: none for either. Bus interface: Ring Bus versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs: motherboard dependent versus 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. Dimensions: the Quadro is 160 mm long and 69 mm high; the Intel IGP has no recorded dimensions.

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the Quadro (1,870 million transistors, 148 mm²). The Intel part has no transistor or die size data. Release dates differ: the Intel UHD Graphics 750 launched on 2021-03-29, while the Quadro K620 launched on 2014-07-21. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell; the Intel part has no predecessor or successor listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The Intel part wins both, but the magnitude of the victories tells different stories.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 6743 against 6693 for the Quadro K620. The delta is just 0.7%, a margin that is effectively within run-to-run variance. Both GPUs cluster around the same performance level in OpenCL compute workloads. The Intel part's higher shading unit count does not translate into a major OpenCL advantage, likely because the Quadro's higher clocks and dedicated memory compensate for its older architecture.

The Vulkan benchmark is where the separation becomes dramatic. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 8138, while the Quadro K620 scores 5870. That is a 38.6% lead for Intel. This result indicates that the newer Generation 12.1 architecture, with its improved driver support for modern APIs, delivers substantially better Vulkan performance than the Maxwell-based Quadro. The Quadro's 384 shading units and higher FP32 throughput do not help it in Vulkan, suggesting that API-level efficiency and memory bandwidth play a larger role than raw compute resources in this workload.

The aggregate data reinforces this picture. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has an average benchmark score of 7441, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K620 averages 6282, in the 36th percentile. The Intel part sits 18.5% above the Quadro in average score. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447, -0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7472, -0.4%), showing that the Intel IGP competes with entry-level discrete GPUs from several generations. The Quadro K620's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, -0.7%), a cluster that positions it well below modern mainstream GPUs.

The wins tally is 2 for the Intel UHD Graphics 750 and 0 for the Quadro K620 across the recorded head-to-head tests. While the Quadro retains theoretical advantages in pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute, the database benchmarks show that the Intel part is the faster GPU in real application workloads, particularly when using the Vulkan API.