NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a clear win for the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The Quadro K620 scored 6693 points, while the GeForce GTX 550 Ti scored 5731 points. That is a 16.8% advantage for the Quadro K620, which places it ahead of its rival in compute workloads measured through OpenCL.

This margin matters in context. The Quadro K620 sits at the 36th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 6282. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both averaging 6270, a 0.2% gap. On the other side, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 averages 6327, which is 0.7% ahead of the Quadro K620, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 averages 6330, 0.8% ahead. The Quadro K620 is essentially bracketed by much newer and more expensive graphics cards, which suggests that its OpenCL performance is competitive even against hardware from later generations.

The GeForce GTX 550 Ti, by contrast, rests at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5731. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX at 5721 (0.2% behind), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 at 5712 (0.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (0.7% behind). The AMD Radeon R7 M465 sits ahead at 5841, which is 1.9% faster than the GTX 550 Ti. Relative to its own peer group, the GTX 550 Ti is competitive, but it does not reach the same absolute performance tier as the Quadro K620.

The data shows only one head-to-head benchmark, so the comparison is limited to OpenCL compute performance. The Quadro K620 wins that test outright, and the 16.8% delta is substantial enough to be meaningful for users who rely on OpenCL-accelerated workloads. The GTX 550 Ti does not have a Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database, while the Quadro K620 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870, which further indicates that the Quadro K620 supports a broader set of modern compute APIs in practice.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has an average benchmark score of 6282, compared to 5731 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti. The Quadro K620 also ranks at the 36th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 550 Ti ranks at the 33rd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared OpenCL benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K620 scores 6693 versus 5731 for the GTX 550 Ti, which is a 16.8% advantage for the Quadro K620. It is the only benchmark where both cards appear in the database, and the Quadro K620 wins it.

Q: Does the GTX 550 Ti support Vulkan?

A: No Vulkan support is recorded for the GTX 550 Ti. The Quadro K620, however, lists Vulkan 1.4 support and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, while the GTX 550 Ti has 192 shading units. The Quadro K620 has exactly twice the shading unit count of the GTX 550 Ti, which contributes to its higher FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has a memory bandwidth of 98.50 GB/s, which is significantly higher than the 28.80 GB/s of the Quadro K620. The GTX 550 Ti uses a 192 bit memory bus with GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro K620 uses a 128 bit bus with DDR3 memory.

Q: Which card has the higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro K620 achieves a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s, compared to 7.200 GPixel/s for the GTX 550 Ti. Despite the GTX 550 Ti having more ROPs (24 versus 16), the Quadro K620's higher clock speeds give it the advantage in pixel throughput.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of texture rate?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has a texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s, slightly ahead of the Quadro K620's 26.98 GTexel/s. The GTX 550 Ti achieves this with 32 TMUs, while the Quadro K620 has 24 TMUs.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations entirely. The Quadro K620 is built on the GM107 chip using the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 550 Ti uses the GF116 chip with the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm, which directly affects transistor density. The Quadro K620 packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². The GTX 550 Ti contains 1,170 million transistors on a much larger die of 238 mm², giving it a density of only 4.9 million transistors per mm². The Maxwell design is therefore more than twice as dense as the Fermi 2.0 design, which is consistent with the newer manufacturing process.

The generation labels also differ. The Quadro K620 is listed under the "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" generation, which is a naming quirk given that the chip itself is Maxwell-based. The GTX 550 Ti belongs to the GeForce 500 generation. The production status for both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a current product. The Quadro K620 was released on 2014-07-21, while the GTX 550 Ti was released on 2011-03-14, which places more than three years between their launch dates.

The predecessor and successor relationships confirm the generational gap. The Quadro K620 follows the Quadro Fermi line and is succeeded by Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 550 Ti follows the GeForce 400 series and is succeeded by the GeForce 600 series. These are entirely separate product families with different design goals: the Quadro line targets professional compute and workstation tasks, while the GeForce line targets consumer graphics.

The compute capabilities differ in ways that matter for modern workloads. The Quadro K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 550 Ti also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but it has no Vulkan support listed. The Quadro K620's Vulkan capability is a clear advantage for applications that use that API. The Quadro K620 also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870, while no such score exists for the GTX 550 Ti.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Quadro K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128 bit bus, with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The GTX 550 Ti uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192 bit bus, with a bandwidth of 98.50 GB/s. The GTX 550 Ti has more than three times the memory bandwidth of the Quadro K620, which is a substantial advantage for bandwidth-bound workloads. However, the Quadro K620 has twice the memory capacity, which helps in workloads that need larger working sets.

The clock behavior also differs. The Quadro K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, with memory clocked at 900 MHz, or 1800 Mbps effective. The GTX 550 Ti has no base or boost clock listed in the database, but its memory runs at 1026 MHz, or 4.1 Gbps effective. The GTX 550 Ti's memory clock is significantly higher, which contributes to its bandwidth advantage.

Compute throughput favors the Quadro K620. It delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 550 Ti delivers 691.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro K620 is roughly 25% ahead in raw FP32 compute, which aligns with its higher OpenCL score. The shading unit count is also doubled: 384 versus 192. The GTX 550 Ti compensates with more TMUs (32 versus 24) and more ROPs (24 versus 16), which explains its higher texture rate and partially offsets the compute gap.

# Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two cards are extensive. The process node differs: the Quadro K620 uses 28 nm, the GTX 550 Ti uses 40 nm. Transistor counts differ as well: 1,870 million versus 1,170 million. The die size is 148 mm² for the Quadro K620 and 238 mm² for the GTX 550 Ti, meaning the larger Fermi die holds fewer transistors. Transistor density is 12.6 million per mm² versus 4.9 million per mm².

Clock speeds differ in both base and boost behavior. The Quadro K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The GTX 550 Ti has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the Quadro K620 and 1026 MHz (4.1 Gbps effective) for the GTX 550 Ti.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 550 Ti has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192 bit bus with 98.50 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 550 Ti wins on bandwidth; the Quadro K620 wins on capacity.

The compute units differ: the Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 550 Ti has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro K620 doubles the shading units, while the GTX 550 Ti has more TMUs and ROPs.

Pixel rate is 17.98 GPixel/s for the Quadro K620 versus 7.200 GPixel/s for the GTX 550 Ti. Texture rate is 26.98 GTexel/s for the Quadro K620 versus 28.80 GTexel/s for the GTX 550 Ti. FP32 compute is 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Quadro K620 has a TDP of 45 W, while the GTX 550 Ti has a TDP of 116 W. The Quadro K620 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GTX 550 Ti is a dual-slot card with one 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro K620 is 160 mm (6.3 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high. The GTX 550 Ti is 210 mm (8.3 inches) long, with no height listed.

Display outputs differ: the Quadro K620 has 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 550 Ti has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The bus interface is the same for both: PCIe 2.0 x16. The API support differs only in Vulkan: the Quadro K620 lists Vulkan 1.4, the GTX 550 Ti lists no Vulkan support.

The release dates confirm the generational gap: the Quadro K620 launched on 2014-07-21, the GTX 550 Ti on 2011-03-14. The launch MSRP for the GTX 550 Ti is recorded as 149 USD. No launch MSRP is listed for the Quadro K620.

# The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K620 as the stronger card overall. It wins the only shared benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 16.8%. It has a higher average benchmark score (6282 versus 5731), a higher percentile rank (36th versus 33rd), more shading units, higher FP32 compute, higher pixel rate, more memory capacity, and support for Vulkan. It also consumes far less power, with a 45 W TDP versus 116 W, and requires no external power connectors.

However, the GTX 550 Ti has genuine advantages in specific areas. Its memory bandwidth of 98.50 GB/s is more than three times that of the Quadro K620. It has more TMUs and ROPs, giving it a higher texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s. For workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound or texture-bound, the GTX 550 Ti could outperform the Quadro K620 despite its lower compute throughput. The GTX 550 Ti also has a recorded launch MSRP of 149 USD, which provides a historical reference point for its market positioning.

The choice between the two depends on the workload. For OpenCL compute, the Quadro K620 is clearly superior. For memory-intensive tasks, the GTX 550 Ti has the bandwidth advantage. The Quadro K620 is the better fit for modern API support, given its Vulkan 1.4 capability. The GTX 550 Ti lacks Vulkan entirely. The Quadro K620 also has twice the memory capacity, which is important for larger datasets.

Both cards are end-of-life, so neither represents a current purchase recommendation. But within the recorded data, the Quadro K620 is the more capable and efficient card. Its 45 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it far easier to integrate into compact or power-constrained systems. The GTX 550 Ti, with its 116 W TDP, dual-slot design, and 6-pin connector, is a more demanding piece of hardware.

Users who prioritize compute performance, API coverage, memory capacity, and power efficiency should choose the Quadro K620. Users who prioritize memory bandwidth and texture throughput might find the GTX 550 Ti suitable for specific legacy workloads, but the overall benchmark evidence favors the Quadro K620. The 16.8% OpenCL lead, combined with the higher average score and better percentile ranking, makes the Quadro K620 the stronger choice in the majority of scenarios represented by the database.