NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the GeForce GT 1010 scores 6698 points, while the Quadro K620M scores 5957 points. This gives the GT 1010 a 12.4% advantage, a decisive margin in a compute-oriented workload.

Context from the nearest rivals helps frame this result. The GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 6698. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon R7 M370, scores 6764, which is only 1% higher. The GT 1010 also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M460 by 1.3% (6612) and the AMD Radeon HD 7730M by 1.8% (6581). The only rival in its immediate cluster that beats it is the AMD FirePro M5100, which scores 6830, a 1.9% lead. These numbers indicate that the GT 1010 is positioned in a tightly contested mid-low range, where single-digit percentage differences separate adjacent products.

The Quadro K620M, by contrast, lands at the 34th percentile, with an average score of 5957. Its rival cluster is similarly dense: the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5955 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982 (0.4% higher), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5929 (0.5% lower). The K620M is essentially tied with all of these parts, with no rival exceeding a 0.5% spread. This suggests the K620M is a stable, predictable performer within its class, but it lacks the headroom the GT 1010 demonstrates.

The head-to-head delta of 12.4% is significant because it places the GT 1010 more than a full tier above the K620M in raw OpenCL throughput, despite both cards carrying the same 2 GB memory capacity. The GT 1010 also claims the only win in this comparison (1 win for the GT 1010, 0 for the K620M). For users relying on OpenCL compute tasks, the GT 1010 delivers a measurable performance advantage that would translate into faster completion times for GPU-accelerated workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 than the NVIDIA Quadro K620M in the recorded benchmark?

A: The GT 1010 scores 6698 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the K620M scores 5957. The GT 1010 is 12.4% ahead, a clear margin that places it in a higher performance tier.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU in the database?

A: The GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, while the K620M sits at the 34th percentile. The 4-percentile gap reflects the GT 1010's higher average score.

Q: Which rival is closest to the GT 1010 in performance, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 is the closest rival, scoring 6764, which is 1% higher than the GT 1010's 6698. The GT 1010 also trails the AMD FirePro M5100 by 1.9% (6830).

Q: Which rival is closest to the K620M, and what is the delta?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5955, essentially matching the K620M's 5957 with a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M is 0.2% higher (5970), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is 0.4% higher (5982).

Q: Does the GT 1010 beat the K620M in every recorded benchmark?

A: Yes. The database lists one head-to-head test (Geekbench OpenCL), and the GT 1010 wins it. The win count is 1 for the GT 1010 and 0 for the K620M.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory size?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of memory. However, the GT 1010 uses GDDR5 with a 64-bit bus, while the K620M uses DDR3 with the same 64-bit bus, resulting in different bandwidth figures.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The GeForce GT 1010 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP108 chip, and is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The Quadro K620M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is substantial: the GT 1010's 14 nm node allows for a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per square millimeter, while the K620M's 28 nm node achieves only 13.2 million per square millimeter.

The transistor counts reflect this density gap. The GT 1010 packs 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, whereas the K620M has 1,020 million transistors on a slightly larger 77 mm² die. This means the GT 1010 crams 76% more transistors into a smaller physical area, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process. The K620M's larger die with fewer transistors indicates a less efficient design from an earlier node.

In terms of compute resources, the K620M actually has more shading units: 384 versus the GT 1010's 256. However, the GT 1010 compensates with higher clock speeds. The GT 1010 runs at a base clock of 1228 MHz and boosts to 1468 MHz, while the K620M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The GT 1010 also has faster memory clocks: its GDDR5 memory operates at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), compared to the K620M's DDR3 at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). This explains the GT 1010's 48.06 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the K620M's 16.02 GB/s, a 3x advantage.

Both GPUs have 16 texture mapping units and 8 raster operation pipelines. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The API support differs slightly: the GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The GT 1010 is a single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while the K620M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) interface, reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification except memory size, TMU count, ROP count, TDP, and power connector type.

• Architecture: Pascal (GT 1010) versus Maxwell (K620M)
• Process Node: 14 nm Samsung (GT 1010) versus 28 nm TSMC (K620M)
• Transistors: 1,800 million (GT 1010) versus 1,020 million (K620M)
• Die Size: 74 mm² (GT 1010) versus 77 mm² (K620M)
• Transistor Density: 24.3M / mm² (GT 1010) versus 13.2M / mm² (K620M)
• Base Clock: 1228 MHz (GT 1010) versus 1029 MHz (K620M)
• Boost Clock: 1468 MHz (GT 1010) versus 1124 MHz (K620M)
• Memory Clock: 1502 MHz / 6 Gbps effective (GT 1010) versus 1001 MHz / 2 Gbps effective (K620M)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 (GT 1010) versus DDR3 (K620M)
• Memory Bandwidth: 48.06 GB/s (GT 1010) versus 16.02 GB/s (K620M)
• Shading Units: 256 (GT 1010) versus 384 (K620M)
• Pixel Rate: 11.74 GPixel/s (GT 1010) versus 8.992 GPixel/s (K620M)
• Texture Rate: 23.49 GTexel/s (GT 1010) versus 17.98 GTexel/s (K620M)
• FP32 Performance: 751.6 GFLOPS (GT 1010) versus 863.2 GFLOPS (K620M)
• Slot Width: Single-slot (GT 1010) versus MXM Module (K620M)
• Suggested PSU: 200 W (GT 1010) versus not specified (K620M)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x4 (GT 1010) versus MXM-A (3.0) (K620M)
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 (GT 1010) versus Portable Device Dependent (K620M)
• Release Date: 2021-01-12 (GT 1010) versus 2015-02-28 (K620M)
• Predecessor: GeForce 900 (GT 1010) versus Quadro Fermi-M (K620M)
• Successor: GeForce 20 (GT 1010) versus Quadro Maxwell-M (K620M)

Notably, the K620M has higher FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS) despite its lower clocks, because its 384 shading units outnumber the GT 1010's 256 by 50%. However, the GT 1010 wins on pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The TDP for both is 30 W, and neither requires power connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 is the stronger performer in the recorded benchmark, with a 12.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a higher percentile ranking (38th versus 34th). Its advantages in memory bandwidth (48.06 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s), pixel rate (11.74 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s), and texture rate (23.49 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s) make it the more capable card for most GPU-accelerated tasks.

However, the K620M is not without merit. Its 384 shading units and higher FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS) suggest it may handle certain compute workloads that scale with shader count rather than memory bandwidth. Its rival cluster is also tighter, with all nearest competitors within 0.5%, indicating consistent, predictable behavior in its class.

For users choosing between these two, the GT 1010 is the default pick for anyone prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, memory bandwidth, or newer architecture features like DirectX 12 (12_1) support. It is also more versatile in terms of display outputs, offering DVI and mini-HDMI 2.0, whereas the K620M's outputs depend on the portable device it is installed in.

The K620M makes sense only in specific scenarios: if the system requires an MXM Module form factor, or if the higher shading unit count and FP32 throughput are more relevant to the workload than the GT 1010's bandwidth advantage. Given that the GT 1010 wins the only direct comparison and achieves a higher percentile, the benchmark data favors the GT 1010 for general-purpose use. The K620M remains a viable option for legacy mobile workstations, but the GT 1010 represents the better-performing part in this head-to-head.