NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620

The GeForce GTX 580M is a mobile graphics solution from the GeForce 500M generation, while the Quadro K620 is a professional desktop workstation card from NVIDIA's Quadro lineup. Despite being released three years apart, both cards occupy a similar performance tier in the database, with the Quadro K620 edging ahead in the single available benchmark. The data reveals a fascinating generational clash between Fermi 2.0 and Maxwell architectures, with each card bringing distinct strengths to different workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389. This gives the Quadro K620 a 4.5% advantage in this test.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of overall benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 580M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K620 ranks at the 36th percentile. Despite the K620 winning the head-to-head test, the percentile rankings are nearly identical, differing by only one point.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference between these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die. The GTX 580M has 80 million more transistors but a die more than twice as large.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 580M has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s, compared to the Quadro K620's 28.80 GB/s. This difference stems from the GTX 580M's 256-bit GDDR5 memory bus versus the K620's 128-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Does the Quadro K620 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Quadro K620 lists Vulkan 1.4 API support, while the GTX 580M's Vulkan support is listed as null in the database, indicating no available Vulkan support data.

Q: What are the power consumption differences between the two cards?

A: The GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module form factor, while the Quadro K620 has a TDP of 45 W and is a single-slot card with a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two NVIDIA GPUs could hardly be more pronounced. The GeForce GTX 580M is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture using the GF114 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process node. This older architecture packs 1,950 million transistors into a substantial 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Fermi 2.0 design dates back to the GeForce 500M generation, representing NVIDIA's second iteration of the Fermi architecture.

In contrast, the Quadro K620 uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, produced on a more advanced 28 nm process from TSMC. This newer manufacturing process allows 1,870 million transistors to fit on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter — more than double the density of the Fermi chip. The Maxwell architecture brings substantial efficiency improvements, which is evident in the K620's dramatically lower 45 W TDP compared to the GTX 580M's 100 W.

The core configurations differ significantly despite both having 384 shading units. The GTX 580M features 64 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro K620 is equipped with only 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This means the Fermi card has more than double the texture units and double the ROP count of the Maxwell card. The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally: the GTX 580M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The GF114 chip's memory operates at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), whereas the GM107's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The API support also reveals the generational gap. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K620 adds Vulkan 1.4 support, which is absent from the GTX 580M's specifications. The physical form factors differ as well — the GTX 580M is an MXM-B (3.0) module designed for portable devices, while the K620 is a PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with display outputs of 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 580M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are closely contested. The Quadro K620 achieves a score of 6693, while the GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389. This represents a 4.5% advantage for the Quadro K620 — a modest but meaningful margin that places the professional card ahead of the gaming-oriented mobile GPU.

This result is somewhat surprising given the GTX 580M's substantial advantages in raw specification. The Fermi card boasts 96.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the K620's 28.80 GB/s — a 3.3x difference. The GTX 580M also has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs compared to 24 and 16, respectively. Yet the Maxwell architecture's efficiency and the K620's higher clock speeds help close the gap. The Quadro K620 runs at a base clock of 1058 MHz with a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the GTX 580M's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The GTX 580M's average benchmark score of 6389 places it exactly level with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE (0% difference), and just 0.3% behind the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell. It also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 by 0.9% and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 by 1%. The Quadro K620's average score of 6282 sits between the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both at 6270 (0.2% behind the K620), while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 trails by 0.7% and the Radeon Pro WX 4100 by 0.8%.

The pixel rates tell an interesting story. The Quadro K620 achieves a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the GTX 580M's 9.92 GPixel/s — an 81% advantage. However, the GTX 580M's texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s surpasses the K620's 26.98 GTexel/s by 47%. In terms of raw FP32 compute, the GTX 580M delivers 952.3 GFLOPS versus the K620's 863.2 GFLOPS, a 10.3% advantage for the older Fermi card.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node advances from 40 nm on the GTX 580M to 28 nm on the Quadro K620, with transistor density improving from 5.9M to 12.6M transistors per square millimeter. Die size shrinks from 332 mm² to 148 mm², while transistor count remains similar at 1,950 million versus 1,870 million.

Clock speeds show the Quadro K620 operating at a base frequency of 1058 MHz and boost up to 1124 MHz, while the GTX 580M's core clocks are not specified. Memory configurations differ significantly: both have 2 GB capacity, but the GTX 580M uses GDDR5 at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) with a 256-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the K620 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

The shading unit count is identical at 384, but TMUs differ at 64 versus 24, and ROPs at 32 versus 16. Pixel rate favors the K620 at 17.98 GPixel/s versus 9.92 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors the GTX 580M at 39.68 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. FP32 performance also favors the GTX 580M at 952.3 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor present stark contrasts. The GTX 580M draws 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the K620 draws 45 W, is a Single-slot card, and uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Neither card requires power connectors. The K620 has a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the GTX 580M has none listed. Display outputs differ, with the K620 offering 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 580M's outputs are portable-device dependent.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The Quadro K620 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 4.5% with a score of 6693 versus 6389. This gives the K620 one benchmark win out of one contested test. However, the GTX 580M counters with superior raw throughput metrics: 10.3% higher FP32 compute, 47% higher texture rate, and 3.3x higher memory bandwidth.

For users prioritizing raw compute and bandwidth, the GTX 580M appears to hold advantages on paper, but the actual benchmark result favors the Quadro K620. The Maxwell architecture's efficiency and the K620's higher clock speeds appear to compensate for its narrower memory bus and reduced TMU/ROP counts. The K620's single-slot form factor, 45 W TDP, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it a more modern and practical option for desktop workstation environments.

The GTX 580M's MXM form factor targets mobile workstations and gaming laptops, where its higher TDP of 100 W and portable-device-dependent outputs make sense. Its Fermi 2.0 architecture, while older, still delivers competitive OpenCL performance at 6389 points, matching the GeForce GTX 460 SE exactly.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K620 wins in:

• Geekbench OpenCL performance, scoring 6693 versus the GTX 580M's 6389, a 4.5% margin
• Pixel fill rate at 17.98 GPixel/s, nearly double the GTX 580M's 9.92 GPixel/s
• Power efficiency with a 45 W TDP versus 100 W
• API support with Vulkan 1.4 available
• Desktop workstation integration with PCIe 2.0 x16 and dedicated display outputs
• Physical footprint as a single-slot 160 mm card

The GeForce GTX 580M wins in:

• FP32 compute at 952.3 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS, a 10.3% advantage
• Texture fill rate at 39.68 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s
• Memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, a 3.3x advantage
• TMU count at 64 versus 24, and ROP count at 32 versus 16
• Transistor count at 1,950 million versus 1,870 million

The benchmark results indicate that despite the GTX 580M's theoretical advantages in compute and memory throughput, the Quadro K620's Maxwell architecture translates to better real-world OpenCL performance. Users requiring maximum texture throughput or memory bandwidth might favor the GTX 580M, while those seeking modern API support, lower power consumption, and better pixel fill performance should consider the Quadro K620.