NVIDIA Quadro 5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 are two professional graphics cards separated by a full architectural generation, and the recorded data shows a closer contest than their age gap might suggest. The Quadro 5000, a Fermi-based card released on 2011-02-22, posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 7289 against the K620's 6693, an 8.9 percent advantage for the older card. Yet the Maxwell-based K620, released on 2014-07-21, achieves its result on a fraction of the power and with a far more modern feature set, including Vulkan 1.4 support. Both cards are end-of-life parts, and both sit in the lower-middle of the historical database, with the Quadro 5000 at the 40th percentile versus all GPUs and the K620 at the 36th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head measurement in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it goes decisively to the Quadro 5000: 7289 points against 6693, a delta of 8.9 percent. That margin is meaningful in absolute terms. The Quadro 5000's OpenCL result places it in the company of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222 average score, 0.9 percent behind), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, 1.2 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, 1.6 percent behind), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170, 1.7 percent behind). In other words, its compute throughput sits in a dense cluster of mainstream parts from various eras, and it edges all of them.

The K620's OpenCL deficit is consistent with its overall database standing. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6282, against the Quadro 5000's average of 7289, and its percentile ranking is four points lower. The K620 also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870, a test for which the Quadro 5000 has no entry at all, since Fermi lacks the Vulkan API support that Maxwell gained. The head-to-head tally therefore reads one win for the Quadro 5000 and zero for the K620, but the Vulkan result is a genuine capability the older card simply cannot match.

Context matters when reading the K620's rival list. Its average score of 6282 lands it within 0.2 percent of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270), and within one percent of the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, 0.7 percent ahead of it) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330, 0.8 percent ahead of it). These adjacency figures reflect averaging across different test mixes rather than true like-for-like equivalence, but they accurately convey that the K620 occupies the same broad performance band as small-form-factor professional parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 5000 wins on raw throughput and memory capability. Its OpenCL score is 8.9 percent higher, and its theoretical rates back that up: 722.3 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 11.29 GPixel/s of pixel fill, 22.57 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 120.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth on a 320-bit GDDR5 bus. For workloads that stream large datasets, such as simulation, video processing, or scene manipulation in professional applications, the Quadro 5000's bandwidth is its strongest asset, more than four times what the K620 can deliver.

The K620 wins on efficiency, footprint, and modern API support. Its TDP is 45 W against the Quadro 5000's 152 W, it requires no auxiliary power connector where the Quadro 5000 needs a 6-pin, and its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 450 W. It is a single-slot card measuring 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height, compared to a dual-slot card at 248 mm by 111 mm. It fits workstations the Quadro 5000 physically cannot. It also posts higher theoretical pixel and texture rates, 17.98 GPixel/s and 26.98 GTexel/s respectively, thanks to its boost clock of 1124 MHz, and slightly higher FP32 throughput at 863.2 GFLOPS. On paper rates it is ahead; on measured OpenCL compute it is behind, which points to memory bandwidth as the Quadro 5000's decisive lever. Finally, the K620 is the only one of the two with Vulkan support, at version 1.4, and it carries a DisplayPort 1.2 output alongside its DVI.

Architecture Differences

The generational gap between these cards is the core of the story. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip on the Fermi architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 40 nm process, with 3,100 million transistors packed into a very large 529 mm² die, yielding a density of 5.9M transistors per mm². The K620 uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, built at TSMC on 28 nm, with 1,870 million transistors in a 148 mm² die and a density of 12.6M per mm², more than double. That density improvement is how the K620 delivers comparable measured performance from roughly 60 percent of the transistor count and under a third of the power budget.

Resource mixes differ sharply. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs; the K620 has 384 shading units but only 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 5000's memory subsystem is the wider design: 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, clocked at 750 MHz for 3 Gbps effective, delivering 120.0 GB/s. The K620 pairs 2 GB of DDR3 with a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective, for just 28.80 GB/s. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

The Quadro 5000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation, succeeded by Quadro Kepler and preceded by Quadro FX Tesla. The K620 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation despite being Maxwell-based internally, succeeded by Quadro Maxwell and preceded by Quadro Fermi, which makes the Quadro 5000 a direct ancestor. Both use PCIe 2.0 x16, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and only the K620 adds Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Quadro 5000. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head 7289 to 6693, an 8.9 percent margin, and holds a higher database percentile, 40 versus 36.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The K620, by a wide margin. Its TDP is 45 W versus 152 W, it needs no power connector versus a 6-pin, and its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 450 W.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 5000, with 120.0 GB/s from its 320-bit GDDR5 bus, compared to 28.80 GB/s from the K620's 128-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Do both cards support Vulkan?

A: No. Only the K620 supports Vulkan, at version 1.4. The Quadro 5000's recorded API support covers DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 only.

Q: Which card is smaller?

A: The K620. It is a single-slot card measuring 160 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the Quadro 5000 is dual-slot at 248 mm long and 111 mm tall.

Q: What did the Quadro 5000 cost at launch?

A: Its launch MSRP was 2,499 USD.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 | NVIDIA Quadro K620 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GF100 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi (x000) | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) |

| Process node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,870 million |

| Die size | 529 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not recorded | 1058 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not recorded | 1124 MHz |

| Memory size | 2.5 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory bus | 320 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Shading units | 352 | 384 |

| TMUs | 44 | 24 |

| ROPs | 40 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 11.29 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 22.57 GTexel/s | 26.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 throughput | 722.3 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 152 W | 45 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 200 W |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan | Not supported | 1.4 |

| Length | 248 mm | 160 mm |

| Height | 111 mm | 69 mm |

| Release date | 2011-02-22 | 2014-07-21 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | Not recorded |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | Quadro Maxwell |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 40 | 36 |

| Average benchmark score | 7289 | 6282 |

The overall picture: the Quadro 5000 delivers higher measured compute and vastly more bandwidth, while the K620 converts a newer process node and architecture into competitive throughput at a third of the power draw, in a smaller form factor, with modern Vulkan support. For bandwidth-hungry professional workloads the older card still leads the data; for efficiency-constrained systems the K620 is the clear fit.