NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded OpenCL benchmark data places these two mobile graphics processors very close together, but the GeForce 940M takes the single head-to-head victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K620M scores 5,957 points while the GeForce 940M scores 6,018 points, a difference of about 1%. The GeForce 940M wins that test outright, though the margin is narrow enough that real-world workloads would likely show run-to-run variation that overlaps the two results.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both parts sit in similar performance territory. The Quadro K620M's average benchmark score is 5,957, which places it in the 34th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5,955 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5,970 (a -0.2% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982 (a -0.4% delta), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5,929 (a 0.5% delta). The picture is clear: the Quadro K620M sits in a tight cluster where the spread between the slowest and fastest nearby competitors is barely 1%.

The GeForce 940M shows a more complicated benchmark profile. Its OpenCL score of 6,018 is slightly higher than the Quadro's, but it also has a Vulkan result of 4,549, which drags its average benchmark score down to 5,284. That average places the GeForce 940M at the 31st percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include some heavyweight names: the GeForce GTX 980M averages 5,308 (a -0.4% delta), the GeForce 930A averages 5,317 (a -0.6% delta), the GeForce 840M averages 5,322 (a -0.7% delta), and the GeForce GTX 760M averages 5,236 (a 0.9% delta). The GeForce 940M's OpenCL score is clearly its strong suit, while the Vulkan result reflects a different API workload that the hardware handles less efficiently.

Interpreting the head-to-head data, the GeForce 940M's 1% OpenCL advantage over the Quadro K620M is meaningful but small. In the database's overall ranking, the Quadro K620M actually holds a higher percentile position (34th vs. 31st) because the GeForce 940M's Vulkan score pulls its average down. This creates an interesting split: the GeForce 940M wins the single direct comparison, but the Quadro K620M looks better in aggregate across multiple test types.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs come from NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture and are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC. The similarities end there. The Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip, while the GeForce 940M uses the larger GM107 die. The transistor counts diverge sharply: the Quadro packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The GeForce 940M scales up to 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.6M per mm². That is a substantial die size difference, nearly double the silicon area, and it shows up in the raw compute resources.

The shading muscle tells the story. The Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The GeForce 940M more than compensates with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 33% increase in shader count and a doubling of both texture units and ROPs. The clock speeds are similar: the Quadro runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the GeForce runs at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost. The GeForce is slightly slower per clock, but the extra hardware more than overcomes that.

Memory configurations are nearly identical in capacity and bus width: both use 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit interface. The clock speeds differ, though. The Quadro K620M runs its memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), producing 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 940M runs its memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro actually has a bandwidth advantage of about 11%, which is notable given the GeForce's larger compute footprint.

The pixel and texture throughput numbers reflect the hardware counts. The Quadro K620M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. The GeForce 940M doubles those figures: 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern: the Quadro delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GeForce reaches 1,124.4 GFLOPS, about 30% higher.

Power consumption differs sharply. The Quadro K620M is rated at 30 W TDP, while the GeForce 940M draws 75 W. Both use MXM modules with no external power connectors, but the bus interfaces differ: the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0) and the GeForce uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are marked end-of-life and share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940M wins in raw compute throughput across the board. Its 512 shading units and 32 TMUs give it a clear advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads, and the 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is roughly 30% ahead of the Quadro K620M's 863.2 GFLOPS. For gaming or general-purpose compute that leans on shader execution, the GeForce 940M is the stronger part. The direct OpenCL benchmark confirms this: it beats the Quadro by 1% in that specific test.

The Quadro K620M wins in efficiency and memory bandwidth. Its 30 W TDP is less than half the GeForce 940M's 75 W rating, making it a better fit for thermally constrained mobile designs. The Quadro also delivers 16.02 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the GeForce's 14.40 GB/s, a 11% advantage that can matter in memory-heavy workloads despite the smaller compute array. The Quadro's higher percentile ranking (34th vs. 31st) also suggests that its average performance across all recorded tests is more consistent.

For professional application use, the Quadro branding implies certification and optimization for workstation software, though the database does not contain specific ISV test results. The GeForce 940M, by contrast, targets consumer gaming and general-purpose mobile graphics. The Vulkan score of 4,549 on the GeForce 940M indicates it can handle modern low-level APIs, but the Quadro K620M has no recorded Vulkan result, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible from the available data.

The choice between them depends on priorities. If maximum shader throughput and fill rate matter, the GeForce 940M is the pick. If power efficiency and memory bandwidth are the constraints, the Quadro K620M makes a stronger case. The 1% OpenCL delta is small enough that other system factors, such as cooling and driver optimization, could flip the result in practice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The GeForce 940M scores 6,018 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K620M scores 5,957. That gives the GeForce a 1% lead in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K620M sits within a 0.5% band of the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955), AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970), NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982), and Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929). The GeForce 940M's average score of 5,284 places it near the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308), GeForce 930A (5,317), GeForce 840M (5,322), and GeForce GTX 760M (5,236).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, while the Quadro K620M has 384. The GeForce also doubles the texture units (32 vs. 16) and ROPs (16 vs. 8).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K620M delivers 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth, which is higher than the GeForce 940M's 14.40 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Quadro K620M is rated at 30 W TDP, while the GeForce 940M is rated at 75 W. The Quadro uses less than half the power of the GeForce.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K620M | NVIDIA GeForce 940M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM108S | GM107 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M) | GeForce 900M |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | 1020 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1098 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| Texture Units | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 17.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 35.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 863.2 GFLOPS | 1,124.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Release Date | 2015-02-28 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Percentile vs. All GPUs | 34 | 31 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5,957 | 5,284 |

| OpenCL Score | 5,957 | 6,018 |

| Vulkan Score | Not recorded | 4,549 |

The specification table highlights the fundamental trade-off. The GeForce 940M commits more silicon to compute, nearly doubling the die size and transistor count, and the raw throughput numbers reflect that investment. The Quadro K620M compensates with a leaner design, lower power draw, and faster memory clock, making it the more balanced part for constrained environments. Both share the same process node, memory capacity, memory type, bus width, API support, and end-of-life status, but their positioning in the database's percentile rankings tells the story: the Quadro sits slightly higher at 34th percentile despite losing the direct OpenCL comparison, while the GeForce's average is dragged down by its Vulkan performance.