NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 across the two shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 scored 29,629 points against the Quadro K620’s 6,693 points, a delta of 342.7%. The Vulkan test tells an even more lopsided story: the GTX 1650 posted 33,042 points versus 5,870 points for the Quadro K620, widening the gap to 462.9%.

These are not marginal victories. The GTX 1650 delivers over four and a half times the Quadro K620’s Vulkan performance, and close to four and a half times its OpenCL throughput. The Quadro K620 has no benchmark win in any recorded test; the head-to-head tally stands at 2 wins for the GTX 1650 and 0 for the Quadro K620. For context, the GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 7,472, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Quadro K620’s average is 6,282, at the 36th percentile. The GTX 1650’s closest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (average score 7,447, delta 0.3%) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (average score 7,441, delta 0.4%), meaning it sits in a tightly packed mid-range cluster. The Quadro K620, by contrast, is flanked by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (both averaging 6,270, delta 0.2%), suggesting its score is near the bottom of a very different performance neighborhood.

The sheer magnitude of the delta in both tests indicates a generational chasm, not a mere spec-sheet bump. A 342.7% lead in OpenCL implies the GTX 1650 is in a completely different compute class. The 462.9% Vulkan advantage further confirms that the GTX 1650 scales far better with modern graphics APIs. The Quadro K620’s Vulkan score of 5,870 is less than one-fifth of the GTX 1650’s 33,042, which points to fundamental limitations in the older card’s ability to handle contemporary workload patterns.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The GTX 1650 is built on Turing, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC, featuring the TU117 chip. The Quadro K620 uses Maxwell, on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with the GM107 chip. The process node difference is stark: 12 nm versus 28 nm. This translates directly to transistor density. The GTX 1650 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro K620 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. Nearly double the transistor density on the GTX 1650 explains much of its performance headroom.

The compute core counts reinforce the gap. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is more than twice the shading units, more than twice the TMUs, and exactly double the ROPs. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 53.28 GPixel/s for the GTX 1650 versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the Quadro K620. Texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS against 863.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro K620 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs in type and speed. The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3, also on a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 28.80 GB/s. Clock speeds diverge as well: the GTX 1650 runs at 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, while the Quadro K620 runs at 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GTX 1650 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K620 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, while the Quadro K620 averages 6,282. The GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, the Quadro K620 at the 36th.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the biggest delta, with the GTX 1650 scoring 33,042 versus the Quadro K620’s 5,870, a difference of 462.9%.

Q: How do the memory types differ between the two cards?

A: The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Both have a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: Does the Quadro K620 have any benchmark win over the GTX 1650?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows 2 wins for the GTX 1650 and 0 for the Quadro K620 across all shared tests.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The GTX 1650 has a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm², while the Quadro K620 has 12.6 million per mm². The GTX 1650 is on a 12 nm process, the Quadro K620 on 28 nm.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The GTX 1650 boosts to 1665 MHz, compared to the Quadro K620’s 1124 MHz boost clock.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 12 nm for the GTX 1650, 28 nm for the Quadro K620. Transistors: 4,700 million versus 1,870 million. Die size: 200 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density: 23.5M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm². Base clock: 1485 MHz versus 1058 MHz. Boost clock: 1665 MHz versus 1124 MHz. Memory clock: 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB. Memory type: GDDR5 versus DDR3. Bandwidth: 128.1 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. Shading units: 896 versus 384. TMUs: 56 versus 24. ROPs: 32 versus 16. Pixel rate: 53.28 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 93.24 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. FP32: 2.984 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. FP16: 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) versus null. TDP: 75 W versus 45 W. Slot width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 200 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0). Dimensions: 229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width versus 160 mm length, 69 mm height, no recorded width. Release date: 2019-04-22 versus 2014-07-21. Generation: GeForce 16 versus Quadro Kepler (Kx200). The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The GTX 1650 outperforms the Quadro K620 in every recorded benchmark and every relevant specification category. The 342.7% lead in OpenCL and 462.9% lead in Vulkan are not close calls. The GTX 1650 has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher clocks, faster memory, more memory capacity, and a more modern architecture on a smaller process node. The Quadro K620’s only advantages are lower power draw (45 W versus 75 W), a single-slot form factor, and a smaller physical footprint. For anyone choosing between these two based on the database measurements, the GTX 1650 is the clear performance pick. The Quadro K620’s average benchmark score of 6,282 places it in the 36th percentile, while the GTX 1650’s 7,472 sits at the 40th. Even the Quadro K620’s nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, show it is clustered with cards scoring around 6,270, confirming its position as a low-end performer in the current database.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins in raw compute, gaming-oriented workloads, and modern API support. Its Vulkan score of 33,042 suggests it handles contemporary graphics pipelines with ease. Its FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS, more than triple the Quadro K620’s 863.2 GFLOPS, makes it suitable for general compute tasks. The 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth provides ample headroom for textures and data-heavy workloads. The GTX 1650’s 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs enable higher fill rates, which benefit resolution scaling and effects-heavy scenes.

The Quadro K620 wins in power efficiency and physical design. Its 45 W TDP is 30 W lower than the GTX 1650’s 75 W, making it easier to cool in compact systems. It is single-slot, measuring 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height, versus the GTX 1650’s dual-slot 229 mm length and 111 mm height. The Quadro K620 also requires a 200 W suggested PSU versus 250 W for the GTX 1650. For systems with tight space constraints or minimal power budgets, the Quadro K620 is the more accommodating option. However, its DirectX 12 (11_0) support and lack of FP16 capability mean it is limited in modern compute scenarios. The GTX 1650’s DirectX 12 (12_1) support and FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS give it a distinct edge in applications that leverage those features. In short, the GTX 1650 is the superior performer across the board, while the Quadro K620 remains a viable option only where its smaller size and lower power draw are the primary concerns.