NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data from the database records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K620 and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, and the Quadro K620 wins both. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K620 scores 6693 against the GeForce 840M's 5764, a lead of 16.1 percent. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Quadro K620 scores 5870 against 4880, a wider margin of 20.3 percent. These are not small gaps; the Vulkan result shows the Quadro K620 delivering roughly a fifth more performance than the GeForce 840M in that workload.

The average benchmark score across all recorded tests reinforces the trend. The Quadro K620 averages 6282 points, while the GeForce 840M averages 5322 points. That difference of 960 points represents a substantial overall performance advantage for the Quadro K620. Looking at where each card sits relative to the broader GPU population, the Quadro K620 lands in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 840M sits in the 31st percentile. The Quadro K620 is not just faster head-to-head; it also ranks higher in the global distribution of recorded GPU scores.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these numbers. The Quadro K620's average score of 6282 places it within a tight cluster: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 both average 6270, just 0.2 percent behind the Quadro K620. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 averages 6327, 0.7 percent ahead, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 averages 6330, 0.8 percent ahead. This means the Quadro K620, despite its age and lower-tier positioning, performs on par with much newer and more powerful-sounding cards in this specific benchmark suite. The GeForce 840M's nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight competition: the NVIDIA GeForce 930A averages 5317 (0.1 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M averages 5308 (0.3 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M averages 5284 (0.7 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 averages 5358 (0.7 percent ahead). The GeForce 840M is essentially mid-pack among its immediate peers, whereas the Quadro K620 is clustered with cards that would typically be considered far more capable.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 20.3 percent lead in Vulkan suggests the Quadro K620 handles modern API workloads with noticeably greater efficiency. OpenCL shows a smaller but still decisive 16.1 percent advantage. In both tests, the Quadro K620 maintains consistent superiority, indicating that the performance gap is not workload-specific but reflects a general capability difference between the two parts.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark. It wins both OpenCL and Vulkan tests, holds a higher average score, and ranks higher in the global percentile distribution. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-oriented tasks should select the Quadro K620 without hesitation. The performance advantage ranges from 16.1 percent in OpenCL to 20.3 percent in Vulkan, and the average score gap of roughly 18 percent across all tests confirms that this is a consistent, not incidental, difference.

However, the GeForce 840M is not without its own rationale. It consumes less power, with a 33 W TDP versus the Quadro K620's 45 W, and it is designed as an integrated graphics part for portable devices, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and requires no power connectors. For a laptop or compact system where power draw and physical footprint matter more than raw throughput, the GeForce 840M could be the practical choice. The Quadro K620, by contrast, is a single-slot desktop card with DVI and DisplayPort outputs, requiring a 200 W suggested power supply.

The verdict from the recorded data: if raw benchmark performance is the priority, the Quadro K620 wins decisively. If power efficiency and form factor are the constraints, the GeForce 840M offers a lower-power alternative, but with a measurable performance penalty. There is no scenario in the data where the GeForce 840M outperforms the Quadro K620.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The similarities end there. The Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip, while the GeForce 840M uses the GM108S. The GM107 die measures 148 mm² and contains 1,870 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GM108S is considerably smaller at 77 mm², with 1,020 million transistors and a higher density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K620's larger die and nearly double the transistor count indicate a more complex and capable design.

Memory architecture differs significantly. Both cards have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the Quadro K620 uses a 128-bit memory bus with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s, while the GeForce 840M uses a 64-bit bus with only 16.02 GB/s. That is a 79.8 percent bandwidth advantage for the Quadro K620. The memory clocks also differ: the Quadro K620 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the GeForce 840M runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. Despite the GeForce 840M's higher memory clock, the narrower bus limits its effective bandwidth severely.

The compute units also diverge. Both have 384 shading units, but the Quadro K620 has 24 texture mapping units and 16 render output units, while the GeForce 840M has only 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This translates directly to throughput: the Quadro K620 achieves a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 26.98 GTexel/s, whereas the GeForce 840M manages 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. The Quadro K620's pixel rate is exactly double that of the GeForce 840M, and its texture rate is 50 percent higher. Interestingly, both GPUs deliver identical FP32 performance at 863.2 GFLOPS, meaning the shading units are equally capable in raw floating-point math. The differences in pixel and texture throughput come from the higher count of TMUs and ROPs in the Quadro K620.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro K620 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GeForce 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro K620's wider interface provides more bandwidth to the host system, though the GeForce 840M's newer PCIe generation partially compensates. Display outputs reflect their intended markets: the Quadro K620 has 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GeForce 840M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," confirming its laptop-oriented design.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Both are end-of-life products, with the GeForce 840M released on 2014-03-11 and the Quadro K620 on 2014-07-21. The Quadro K620's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell, while the GeForce 840M succeeds the GeForce 700M and is succeeded by the GeForce 900M. The GeForce 840M is part of the GeForce 800M generation, while the Quadro K620 is listed under a generation label that mentions Quadro Kepler (Kx200), which is something of a misnomer given it is built on Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 with an average score of 6282 versus the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's 5322, a difference of 960 points.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K620 in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K620 scores 5870 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GeForce 840M scores 4880, giving the Quadro K620 a 20.3 percent lead.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory size and type?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the Quadro K620 uses a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the GeForce 840M uses a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro K620 has 24 TMUs, while the GeForce 840M has 16 TMUs. The Quadro K620 also has 16 ROPs versus 8 ROPs on the GeForce 840M.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro K620 has a TDP of 45 W, while the GeForce 840M has a TDP of 33 W, making the GeForce 840M the lower-power option.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on Maxwell architecture with a 28 nm process, but they use different chips: GM107 for the Quadro K620 and GM108S for the GeForce 840M.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K620 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In OpenCL, it outperforms the GeForce 840M by 16.1 percent. In Vulkan, the lead extends to 20.3 percent. The average benchmark score shows an overall advantage of roughly 18 percent. The Quadro K620 also wins on memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s), pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s), texture rate (26.98 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s), and has double the ROPs and 50 percent more TMUs. Its larger die, with 1,870 million transistors versus 1,020 million, and its 128-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, further cement its superiority in data throughput. The Quadro K620's percentile ranking of 36 versus the GeForce 840M's 31 also places it higher in the global distribution.

The GeForce 840M wins on power consumption, with a 33 W TDP versus 45 W. It also has a higher memory clock (1001 MHz versus 900 MHz) and a newer PCIe interface (PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16). The GeForce 840M is an integrated part, meaning it takes up no slot space and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for thin and light portable devices. Its smaller die (77 mm² versus 148 mm²) and lower transistor count also imply lower manufacturing complexity, though that is not a performance advantage. The GeForce 840M's nearest rival cluster includes the GeForce 930A, GTX 980M, and 940M, all within 0.7 percent of its score, indicating it is a well-balanced part within its own performance tier.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, memory bandwidth, or pixel/texture throughput, the Quadro K620 is the only choice. For users prioritizing low power draw, minimal physical footprint, and integration into a portable system, the GeForce 840M offers those benefits, albeit with a significant performance trade-off.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications reveal clear distinctions between the two GPUs. The Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip, while the GeForce 840M uses GM108S. The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both are fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts differ: 1,870 million for the Quadro K620 versus 1,020 million for the GeForce 840M. Die size is 148 mm² versus 77 mm², and transistor density is 12.6 million per mm² versus 13.2 million per mm².

Clock speeds are close: the Quadro K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the GeForce 840M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and the same boost clock of 1124 MHz. Memory clocks differ: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the Quadro K620 versus 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the GeForce 840M. Memory size is the same at 2 GB, and both use DDR3, but the bus width is 128-bit for the Quadro K620 and 64-bit for the GeForce 840M. Bandwidth follows: 28.80 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s.

Shading units are equal at 384, but TMUs are 24 versus 16, and ROPs are 16 versus 8. Pixel rates are 17.98 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 26.98 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is identical at 863.2 GFLOPS. TDP is 45 W versus 33 W. The Quadro K620 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W; the GeForce 840M is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. Bus interfaces are PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro K620, versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the GeForce 840M. API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions are recorded only for the Quadro K620: 160 mm length and 69 mm height. Production status is end-of-life for both. Release dates are 2014-07-21 for the Quadro K620 and 2014-03-11 for the GeForce 840M.