NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU achieves the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 records an average benchmark score of 6282, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M trails at 5501. The K620 also sits higher in the overall GPU percentile ranking, at the 36th percentile versus the 765M’s 32nd percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GeForce GTX 765M leads in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 7176 compared to the Quadro K620’s 6693. That is a 6.7% advantage for the GTX 765M in this specific workload.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 765M again wins, scoring 6714 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 5870 for the Quadro K620. The delta is 12.6% in favor of the GTX 765M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and larger die?

A: The GeForce GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The Quadro K620 is built on Maxwell architecture, while the GeForce GTX 765M uses the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 765M uses GDDR5 with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K620 uses DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K620 and GeForce GTX 765M come from different NVIDIA generations, and the architectural gap is significant. The K620 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, despite carrying the Maxwell architecture. Its chip, GM107, is a small and efficient design with 1,870 million transistors packed into a 148 mm² die. The GTX 765M, on the other hand, is part of the GeForce 700M series, uses the GK106 chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, and is built on the older Kepler architecture.

The transistor density tells an interesting story: the K620 achieves 12.6 million transistors per mm², while the GTX 765M reaches 11.5 million per mm². That density advantage comes from the newer Maxwell design, which focuses on efficiency per transistor. The K620 also has a much lower TDP of 45 W versus 75 W for the GTX 765M, reflecting a power-conscious workstation design.

In terms of compute resources, the GTX 765M is far more heavily equipped. It packs 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The K620 has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That disparity shows up in raw throughput: the GTX 765M delivers 1,325.6 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and 55.23 GTexel/s of texture rate, while the K620 manages 863.2 GFLOPS and 26.98 GTexel/s. The K620 does edge ahead in pixel rate, 17.98 GPixel/s versus 13.81 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds differ notably as well. The K620 runs at a base of 1058 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the GTX 765M operates at 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost. Memory clocks also diverge: the K620’s DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GTX 765M’s GDDR5 runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). That difference, combined with the memory type, explains the bandwidth gap.

Bus interfaces and form factors are another point of separation. The K620 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card, 160 mm long and 69 mm tall, with display outputs of one DVI and one DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 765M is an MXM module (MXM-B 3.0) designed for laptops, with no fixed dimensions listed and portable-device-dependent outputs. The K620 recommends a 200 W power supply, while the GTX 765M has no suggested PSU figure.

API support is mostly aligned, with both supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K620 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 765M stops at Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 765M also adds a Metal benchmark score of 2612, which the K620 does not have.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the GeForce GTX 765M is the faster GPU in the two shared benchmark tests, but the Quadro K620 holds a higher average score and better overall percentile ranking. The GTX 765M wins Geekbench OpenCL (7176 vs 6693) and Geekbench Vulkan (6714 vs 5870), with deltas of 6.7% and 12.6% respectively. However, the K620’s average benchmark score of 6282 versus 5501 for the GTX 765M suggests the K620 performs more consistently across a broader set of workloads.

For a professional workstation context, the Quadro K620 is the logical choice. It runs on Maxwell architecture, consumes only 45 W, fits in a single-slot PCIe card, and offers a DisplayPort 1.2 output. Its lower TDP and smaller die make it suitable for compact or power-sensitive systems. The GTX 765M, with its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor, is aimed at mobile gaming laptops, not professional desktops.

For raw compute in gaming or general-purpose tasks, the GTX 765M’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth give it an edge. But the K620’s higher clocks and better pixel rate make it competitive in certain rendering scenarios. The verdict is situational: pick the GTX 765M if the workload is OpenCL or Vulkan heavy and the platform is a laptop; pick the K620 if the need is a stable, low-power workstation card with a strong average score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every major specification. The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both use TSMC as the foundry, but the chips are different: GM107 for the K620 versus GK106 for the GTX 765M. The K620’s die is 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors, while the GTX 765M’s die is 221 mm² with 2,540 million transistors. Transistor density favors the K620 at 12.6M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the K620 in terms of raw frequency. Base clock is 1058 MHz for the K620 versus 797 MHz for the GTX 765M, and boost clock is 1124 MHz versus 863 MHz. Memory clock also differs: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the K620’s DDR3, versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the GTX 765M’s GDDR5.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the GTX 765M: 64.13 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the memory type is the key differentiator. Shading units and TMUs are also vastly different: 768 and 64 for the GTX 765M, versus 384 and 24 for the K620. ROPs are equal at 16 each.

Compute rates reflect the hardware differences. The GTX 765M posts 1,325.6 GFLOPS FP32 and 55.23 GTexel/s, while the K620 posts 863.2 GFLOPS and 26.98 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is the one metric where the K620 wins: 17.98 GPixel/s versus 13.81 GPixel/s.

Power and form factor differ sharply. The K620 has a TDP of 45 W, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W, is an MXM module, also has no power connectors, and uses MXM-B (3.0). The K620 has a suggested PSU of 200 W; the GTX 765M has none listed.

Display outputs and dimensions are also different. The K620 has one DVI and one DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 765M’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The K620 measures 160 mm by 69 mm; the GTX 765M has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ by about 14 months: the K620 launched in July 2014, while the GTX 765M launched in May 2013.

API support is almost identical, with both supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K620 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 765M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 765M also has a Geekbench Metal score, which the K620 lacks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark tests show a consistent winner: the GeForce GTX 765M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 765M scores 7176 against the Quadro K620’s 6693, a 6.7% advantage. The GTX 765M’s higher shading unit count (768 vs 384) and faster memory bandwidth likely drive this result.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows. The GTX 765M scores 6714, while the K620 scores 5870, a 12.6% gap. This suggests the GTX 765M’s architecture scales better with modern low-level APIs, despite being based on older Kepler silicon.

The K620’s closest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both with average scores of 6270, placing them just 0.2% below the K620’s 6282. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 and Radeon Pro WX 4100 sit slightly above, at 6327 and 6330 respectively, with deltas of -0.7% and -0.8% relative to the K620.

The GTX 765M’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (average 5508, -0.1% delta), AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, +0.3% delta), NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, +0.6% delta), and AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, -0.7% delta). These are all close matches, highlighting how the GTX 765M sits in a crowded mid-range mobile segment.

The head-to-head record is 2-0 in favor of the GTX 765M. However, the K620’s average benchmark score of 6282 versus 5501 for the GTX 765M indicates that outside these two tests, the K620 performs better on average. This discrepancy may stem from the K620’s higher clocks and Maxwell efficiency, which could benefit other workload types not captured in the head-to-head list.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 765M wins in OpenCL and Vulkan compute tasks. Its 768 shading units and 64 TMUs provide raw parallel processing power that the Quadro K620 cannot match. The 64.13 GB/s memory bandwidth also gives it a clear advantage in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, such as texture-heavy rendering or large data transfers. For gaming or general compute on a laptop, the GTX 765M is the stronger choice.

The Quadro K620 wins in efficiency and workstation-specific features. Its 45 W TDP is 40% lower than the GTX 765M’s 75 W, making it easier to cool and power in a desktop chassis. The single-slot PCIe form factor and DisplayPort 1.2 output are suited for professional multi-display setups. Its higher pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s versus 13.81 GPixel/s suggests better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as high-resolution 2D rendering or basic 3D viewport work.

The K620 also wins on average benchmark score, 6282 versus 5501, and sits at a higher percentile (36th vs 32nd). This means that across a broader range of tests, the K620 is more consistent. Its Maxwell architecture, despite having fewer shading units, delivers better per-clock performance and lower power draw.

For Vulkan support, the K620’s version 1.4 is newer than the GTX 765M’s 1.2.175, which could matter for future software compatibility. The GTX 765M, however, adds Metal support, which is relevant for macOS-based workflows.

In summary, the GTX 765M is the pick for raw compute throughput and memory-bound tasks, while the K620 is the pick for low-power workstation use, fill-rate efficiency, and consistent average performance. The choice depends on whether the priority is raw speed or professional-grade stability and efficiency.