NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro K620M over the NVIDIA GeForce 930A. In the sole benchmark test captured in the database, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K620M scores 5957 points against the GeForce 930A’s 5317 points, a 12% lead. This places the Quadro K620M in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 930A sits slightly lower at the 31st percentile.

For professional workstation tasks, the Quadro K620M is the only logical pick. Its higher raw compute score, combined with its MXM Module form factor and Quadro lineage, targets systems where stability and certified performance are expected. The GeForce 930A, with its IGP slot width and lower benchmark standing, is better suited for general consumer laptops where the 12% performance gap is less critical, and where its lower TDP of 33 W versus 30 W might be offset by other system factors. If the workload is purely compute-bound and the platform accepts MXM modules, the Quadro K620M wins outright. If the system requires a PCIe 3.0 x8 integrated part, the GeForce 930A is the only option, albeit with a measurable performance penalty.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same foundational architecture, but their implementation details create distinct profiles. Both are built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the same transistor count of 1,020 million and the same die size of 77 mm². This results in an identical transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The chip for the Quadro K620M is designated GM108S, while the GeForce 930A uses the GM108.

The core configurations differ in one key aspect: texture mapping units. The Quadro K620M has 16 TMUs, while the GeForce 930A has 24 TMUs. Both share 384 shading units and 8 ROPs. This TMU disparity directly influences texture throughput, where the GeForce 930A achieves 22.58 GTexel/s versus the Quadro K620M’s 17.98 GTexel/s. Conversely, the Quadro K620M clocks higher, with a base of 1029 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz, compared to the GeForce 930A’s base of 928 MHz and boost of 941 MHz. This higher clock rate drives the Quadro’s pixel rate to 8.992 GPixel/s against the GeForce’s 7.528 GPixel/s, and its FP32 compute to 863.2 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations are identical: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Neither card supports FP16, and both list null for ray tracing and tensor cores. API support is also the same: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The physical and interface differences are notable. The Quadro K620M uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the GeForce 930A is listed as IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. Both require no power connectors. The Quadro K620M has a TDP of 30 W, slightly lower than the GeForce 930A’s 33 W. Production status for both is end-of-life, with the Quadro released on 2015-02-28 and the GeForce on 2015-03-12.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides only one direct comparison, but the architectural numbers allow for a clear use-case split. The Quadro K620M wins in raw compute and pixel processing. Its FP32 output of 863.2 GFLOPS is 19.4% higher than the GeForce 930A’s 722.7 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s is 19.5% faster. These metrics favor workloads that are shader-heavy or require high fill rates, such as CAD viewport rendering, basic 3D modeling, and compute tasks that rely on FP32 throughput.

The GeForce 930A wins in texture throughput, with 22.58 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, a 25.6% advantage. This is driven entirely by its additional 8 TMUs, even though its clock speed is lower. This makes the GeForce 930A relatively stronger in texture-bound scenarios, such as certain game workloads or image processing filters that sample many texels per pixel. However, its lower overall FP32 and pixel rates mean those texture wins do not translate into a higher Geekbench OpenCL score.

In the direct head-to-head, the Quadro K620M wins the only recorded benchmark, and the winsA count stands at 1 versus 0. The percentile data reinforces this: the Quadro sits at the 34th percentile, above the GeForce’s 31st. For a system designer, the choice hinges on whether texture rate or compute rate is more valuable. The data suggests most general-purpose OpenCL workloads favor the Quadro’s higher compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 930A’s score of 5317.

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

A: Yes, both are built on the Maxwell architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the same transistor count of 1,020 million and die size of 77 mm². The Quadro uses the GM108S chip, while the GeForce uses the GM108.

Q: What is the main clock speed difference?

A: The Quadro K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The GeForce 930A runs at a base of 928 MHz and a boost of 941 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units?

A: The GeForce 930A has 24 TMUs, compared to the Quadro K620M’s 16 TMUs. This gives the GeForce a higher texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Q: Do they have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s and a memory clock of 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The Quadro K620M uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the GeForce 930A is listed as IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The Quadro also has a lower TDP of 30 W versus 33 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K620M scores 5957, and the GeForce 930A scores 5317. The delta is exactly 12%, with the Quadro K620M declared the winner. This is the only direct measurement, so it carries substantial weight in any comparison.

To contextualize the 12% lead, the Quadro K620M’s nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (avg score 5955, delta 0%), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (avg score 5970, delta -0.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (avg score 5982, delta -0.4%), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (avg score 5929, delta 0.5%). This means the Quadro K620M sits in a very tight cluster, within 0.5% of these four rivals. Its 34th percentile position reflects this crowded mid-range field.

The GeForce 930A’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (avg score 5322, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (avg score 5308, delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (avg score 5284, delta 0.6%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (avg score 5358, delta -0.8%). The GeForce 930A is similarly clustered, with its 5317 score falling within 0.8% of these parts. Its 31st percentile indicates a slightly lower standing than the Quadro.

The biggest win for the Quadro K620M is in the FP32 compute and pixel rate. The FP32 figure of 863.2 GFLOPS is 19.4% above the GeForce 930A’s 722.7 GFLOPS. The pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s is 19.5% higher than the GeForce’s 7.528 GPixel/s. These are the metrics that likely drive the OpenCL score advantage.

The biggest win for the GeForce 930A is in texture rate. Its 22.58 GTexel/s is 25.6% higher than the Quadro’s 17.98 GTexel/s. This is a substantial lead, but it does not overcome the compute deficit in the benchmark result. The GeForce also has a higher TDP of 33 W versus 30 W, which could be a thermal consideration in compact systems.

The data shows a consistent pattern: the Quadro K620M is clocked higher, delivers more compute and pixel throughput, and wins the OpenCL benchmark by 12%. The GeForce 930A has more TMUs and a higher texture rate, but this does not translate into a benchmark victory. For any application that prioritizes FP32 compute or fill rate, the Quadro K620M is the stronger choice. For texture-heavy workloads, the GeForce 930A has a theoretical edge, but the overall benchmark suggests that edge is not decisive in OpenCL performance.