NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M in an unusually close contest. Both share the same GM108S chip, the same Maxwell architecture, and identical core configurations. The decisive factor in the database is the single Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, where the Quadro K620M scores 5957 against the GeForce 840M’s 5764, a 3.3% advantage. The Quadro K620M wins the only head-to-head test recorded, but the margin is slim and the broader context matters.

For users prioritizing the workstation-oriented Quadro line, the K620M offers the higher raw compute score and a better percentile placement. It sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the 840M sits at the 31st. The K620M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2% delta), meaning it is effectively tied with those parts. The 840M, by contrast, is bracketed by the GeForce 930A (5317, 0.1% delta) and the GeForce 940M (5284, 0.7% delta), showing it sits in a slightly lower performance tier.

The GeForce 840M, however, has one clear advantage in the data: it has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 4880, while the Quadro K620M has no Vulkan result listed. For any workload that uses Vulkan, the 840M is the only one of the two with demonstrated capability in the database. The 840M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and an IGP slot width, which may make it easier to integrate into a broader range of portable systems. The K620M uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface and an MXM Module slot width, which is a more specialized form factor.

The verdict is straightforward: if the only metric is raw OpenCL compute, the Quadro K620M is the pick, but only by a 3.3% margin. If Vulkan support matters, or if the system requires a PCIe x8 IGP solution, the GeForce 840M is the better choice. Neither part is a clear winner across all recorded metrics, and the data shows two nearly identical GPUs differentiated by their intended market segments and one additional benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K620M has an average benchmark score of 5957, while the GeForce 840M has an average of 5322. The 840M’s average is pulled down by its Vulkan score of 4880, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 5764.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K620M in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K620M scores 5957 versus the GeForce 840M’s 5764, a 3.3% delta in favor of the K620M.

Q: Does the GeForce 840M have any benchmark that the Quadro K620M lacks?

A: Yes. The GeForce 840M has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4880. The Quadro K620M has no Vulkan benchmark listed in the database.

Q: Are the two GPUs based on the same chip?

A: Yes. Both use the GM108S chip, the Maxwell architecture, a 28 nm process node from TSMC, 1,020 million transistors, and a 77 mm² die size.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K620M ranks at the 34th percentile, while the GeForce 840M ranks at the 31st percentile.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: They are identical. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, a 64-bit bus width, and 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

Both the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M are built on the same GM108S chip, which is a Maxwell architecture design manufactured at TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 1,020 million, and the die size is the same at 77 mm², yielding a matching transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The fundamental compute blocks are also identical: 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units.

The architectural similarity extends to the clock behavior. Both parts run at a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The memory clock is also the same at 1001 MHz, with an effective data rate of 2 Gbps. This means the raw compute ceilings are equal. The pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s for both, and the texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 863.2 GFLOPS for both parts. There are no ray tracing cores or tensor cores on either GPU, which is expected for a Maxwell-era part.

Where the architecture diverges is in the integration and platform targeting, not the silicon itself. The Quadro K620M is listed under the generation "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)" despite using the Maxwell architecture, indicating a transitional naming scheme. The GeForce 840M is listed under the "GeForce 800M" generation. The bus interfaces differ: the K620M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the 840M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The slot width also differs: the K620M is an MXM Module, while the 840M is an IGP. The display outputs are identical in description, both listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

The API support is the same for both, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither part has a listed FP16 performance figure. The production status is end-of-life for both. The release dates differ, with the GeForce 840M released in March 2014 and the Quadro K620M released in February 2015. The predecessors and successors also differ: the K620M follows the Quadro Fermi-M and precedes the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the 840M follows the GeForce 700M and precedes the GeForce 900M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share most specifications, but the database records several distinct differences. The most significant difference is the TDP: the Quadro K620M is rated at 30 W, while the GeForce 840M is rated at 33 W. This is a 3 W difference, which is small but measurable.

The slot width and bus interface are also different. The K620M uses an MXM Module slot width and an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. The 840M uses an IGP slot width and a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. This is a key differentiator for system integration, as the MXM form factor is typically found in modular laptops and workstations, while the IGP form factor is more common in integrated or semi-integrated designs.

The generation and release dates differ. The K620M is listed under "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)" and was released on February 28, 2015. The 840M is listed under "GeForce 800M" and was released on March 11, 2014. The predecessor and successor names also differ, reflecting their different product lines: the K620M replaces the Quadro Fermi-M and is succeeded by the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the 840M replaces the GeForce 700M and is succeeded by the GeForce 900M.

The benchmark record is another differentiating factor. The K620M has a single recorded Geekbench OpenCL score of 5957. The 840M has two recorded scores: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5764 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4880. This means the 840M has a broader benchmark coverage in the database. The average benchmark score reflects this: the K620M’s average is 5957, while the 840M’s average is 5322, due to the lower Vulkan result.

The percentile rankings also differ, with the K620M at the 34th percentile and the 840M at the 31st percentile. The nearest rivals are entirely different for the two parts, reflecting their different performance neighborhoods. The K620M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, AMD Radeon HD 8750M, NVIDIA Quadro K4000, and Intel UHD Graphics 730. The 840M’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, AMD Radeon R7 M445, and NVIDIA GeForce 940M.

All other specifications, including memory size, type, bus width, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, clocks, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, power connectors, and display outputs, are identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the GeForce 840M scores 5764. The winner is the Quadro K620M, with a delta of 3.3%. This is a modest but real advantage, and it is the only direct comparison available in the recorded data.

The 3.3% lead in OpenCL is worth interpreting in context. The K620M’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, scores 5955, which is essentially a tie at a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970, which is 0.2% ahead of the K620M. This places the K620M in a tight cluster of GPUs around the 5950 to 5970 mark. The 840M, by contrast, scores 5764 in OpenCL, which places it closer to its own nearest rivals: the GeForce 930A at 5317, the GeForce GTX 980M at 5308, the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358, and the GeForce 940M at 5284. The 840M’s OpenCL score is well above those rivals, but it is still below the K620M.

The 840M does have a Vulkan score of 4880, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison because the K620M has no Vulkan result. This is a significant gap in the data. If a workload uses Vulkan, the 840M is the only part with a recorded score, and that score is 4880. The K620M’s lack of a Vulkan result means the database cannot confirm its Vulkan performance, despite the API being listed as supported. This is a meaningful caveat for any user considering Vulkan-based applications.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The K620M’s average of 5957 is identical to its OpenCL score because it has no other benchmark results. The 840M’s average of 5322 is lower than its OpenCL score of 5764 because the Vulkan score of 4880 drags the average down. The 840M’s average is below the K620M’s average by roughly 635 points, but this is entirely due to the inclusion of the Vulkan result.

In terms of wins, the Quadro K620M records 1 win in head-to-head benchmarks, and the GeForce 840M records 0 wins. However, the 840M’s Vulkan result is a qualitative advantage that the head-to-head table does not capture. The data suggests that for OpenCL, the K620M is slightly faster, but for Vulkan, the 840M has demonstrated performance while the K620M remains unmeasured.

The percentile placement reinforces the OpenCL result. The K620M sits at the 34th percentile, which is higher than the 840M’s 31st percentile. This is consistent with the K620M’s higher OpenCL score. The nearest rival data for each part also shows different performance neighborhoods: the K620M competes with AMD Radeon HD 8000M series parts and the Quadro K4000, while the 840M competes with GeForce 900M series parts and the Radeon R7 M445. This suggests the K620M is positioned slightly higher in the performance hierarchy, at least for OpenCL compute tasks.