NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents two NVIDIA GPUs separated by nearly a decade of architecture, process technology, and market positioning. The GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is a desktop enthusiast card built on Ada Lovelace, while the Quadro K620M is a low-power mobile workstation part from the Maxwell era. Benchmark results show the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6269.5, placing it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro K620M, tested via Geekbench OpenCL, scores 5957 and sits in the 34th percentile. The RTX card's nearest rival is the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER with identical average scores, while the Quadro K620M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M with a 0% delta. For any task requiring modern rendering features, high memory bandwidth, or substantial compute throughput, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the only defensible choice from the data. The Quadro K620M remains relevant only for legacy mobile workstation deployments where its 30W TDP and MXM module form factor are required. Users selecting between these two should base their decision entirely on platform compatibility and workload age; the performance gulf is not close.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using a 5 nm process at TSMC, featuring 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die with a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The Quadro K620M uses the Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with just 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a density of 13.2M per mm². The process node gap is three generations apart, which explains the drastic differences in transistor count and density. The RTX card includes 66 ray tracing cores and 264 tensor cores, while the Quadro K620M has neither, as those hardware units did not exist in the Maxwell generation. The RTX card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use TSMC as the foundry, but the architectural feature set diverges completely: the RTX card is designed for real-time ray tracing and AI acceleration, while the Quadro K620M relies on traditional rasterization only. The RTX card has 8448 shading units, 264 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs; the Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are not incremental differences but categorical ones.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The FACT PACK includes no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these two GPUs. Instead, each has a single benchmark result from a different test suite. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 scores 6269.5 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while the Quadro K620M scores 5957 in Geekbench OpenCL. These tests measure different workloads—DirectX 12 gaming versus OpenCL compute—so a direct percentage comparison is not statistically meaningful. However, the percentile placements are close: 36th for the RTX card and 34th for the Quadro K620M. The RTX card's average benchmark score is 6270, and its nearest rival, the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, matches that exactly with a 0% delta. The Quadro K620M's average score is 5957, with the Radeon HD 8730M as a 0% delta rival. The data shows the RTX card outperforms the AMD FirePro W600 by 0.8% and trails the Radeon R7 M350 by 0.9%. The Quadro K620M leads the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 0.5% and falls behind the Quadro K4000 by 0.4%. The raw compute figures tell a clearer story: the RTX card delivers 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 and 44.10 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1), whereas the Quadro K620M manages 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 with no FP16 data listed. That is a ratio of roughly 51:1 in FP32 throughput. The RTX card also has pixel rate of 250.6 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 689.0 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 672.3 GB/s against 16.02 GB/s. No single benchmark ties them together, but the specification deltas align with the architectural generational gap.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based solely on the FACT PACK:

• Process node: 5 nm (RTX) vs 28 nm (Quadro)
• Transistors: 76,300 million vs 1,020 million
• Die size: 609 mm² vs 77 mm²
• Transistor density: 125.3M / mm² vs 13.2M / mm²
• Base clock: 2340 MHz vs 1029 MHz
• Boost clock: 2610 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• Memory clock: 1313 MHz 21 Gbps effective vs 1001 MHz 2 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 16 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6X vs DDR3
• Memory bus width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 672.3 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s
• Shading units: 8448 vs 384
• TMUs: 264 vs 16
• ROPs: 96 vs 8
• RT cores: 66 vs none (null)
• Tensor cores: 264 vs none (null)
• Pixel rate: 250.6 GPixel/s vs 8.992 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 689.0 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s
• FP32: 44.10 TFLOPS vs 863.2 GFLOPS
• FP16: 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1) vs none (null)
• TDP: 285 W vs 30 W
• Slot width: Triple-slot vs MXM Module
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 600 W vs none (null)
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs MXM-A (3.0)
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (11_0)
• Dimensions: 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm vs no dimensions listed
• Release date: 2024-06-09 vs 2015-02-28
• Predecessor: GeForce 30 vs Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: GeForce 50 vs Quadro Maxwell-M
• Launch MSRP: 799 USD (RTX only, stated once) vs none (Quadro)

The RTX card's FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 indicates a fully unified shader pipeline for half-precision compute, which the Quadro lacks entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has 8448 shading units, while the Quadro K620M has 384. This is a 22x difference in raw shading hardware.

Q: Does the Quadro K620M support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro K620M, based on Maxwell architecture, has no ray tracing cores listed, whereas the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 includes 66 RT cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX card provides 672.3 GB/s bandwidth via 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro K620M provides 16.02 GB/s via 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. That is roughly 42x higher bandwidth for the RTX card.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same generation?

A: No. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is from the GeForce 40 series with a release date of 2024-06-09. The Quadro K620M was released on 2015-02-28, and its generation is listed as "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)" despite using the Maxwell GM108S chip.

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark percentile?

A: The RTX card is in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro K620M is in the 34th percentile. Despite the massive specification gap, their percentile positions are only 2 points apart.

Q: Can the Quadro K620M handle DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) only, while the RTX card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 wins decisively in every measurable compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 44.10 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS makes it the clear choice for any floating-point-heavy workload. The 16 GB GDDR6X memory with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and high-resolution textures, while the Quadro K620M's 2 GB DDR3 at 16.02 GB/s would bottleneck even modest modern workloads. The RTX card's 66 RT cores and 264 tensor cores enable ray-traced rendering and AI inference, which the Quadro K620M cannot perform at all. The RTX card also has a higher pixel rate (250.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (689.0 GTexel/s), meaning it fills frames and textures far faster. For gaming, the RTX card's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6269.5 is the only gaming-relevant benchmark in the pack; the Quadro K620M has no gaming benchmark data.

The Quadro K620M wins in power efficiency and physical form factor. Its 30W TDP is a fraction of the RTX card's 285W, and it requires no power connectors, whereas the RTX card needs a 1x 16-pin connector and a 600W suggested PSU. The Quadro K620M is an MXM module, meaning it fits into laptop or small-form-factor mobile workstations, while the RTX card is a triple-slot desktop expansion card measuring 310 mm in length. The Quadro K620M is also portable-device dependent for display outputs, making it suitable for embedded or custom mobile applications. Its 2015 release date and Maxwell architecture mean it is only viable for legacy software environments that predate modern API requirements. The Quadro K620M's OpenCL score of 5957 places it near the Radeon HD 8730M, indicating it is competitive with entry-level mobile GPUs from its era, but not with any current hardware. In summary, the RTX card wins all performance-based use cases; the Quadro K620M wins only where power draw, physical size, and mobile integration are the primary constraints.