NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 and NVIDIA Quadro K620 are both end-of-life, single-slot graphics cards aimed at very different market segments, yet their benchmark results place them in an unexpectedly close contest. The data reveals a fascinating clash between a modern entry-level consumer GPU built on a leading-edge process and an older professional workstation card with a wider memory bus and more shading units. The benchmark results suggest that architectural differences and driver optimizations may matter more than raw component counts when these two are compared.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are remarkably tight. The GeForce GT 1010 scores 6698 points, edging out the Quadro K620’s 6693 points by a razor-thin margin of 0.1%. This is effectively a statistical tie, but it is a significant result for the GT 1010 given the hardware disparity. The GT 1010 achieves this with just 256 shading units and a 64-bit memory interface, while the K620 fields 384 shading units and a 128-bit bus. The data implies that the GT 1010’s newer Pascal architecture and faster 6 Gbps GDDR5 memory more than compensate for its smaller core configuration.

Looking at the broader context, the GT 1010's average benchmark score of 6698 places it in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the K620’s average score of 6282 puts it in the 36th percentile. This 1.8% average score difference is larger than the head-to-head delta suggests, but the K620’s average is dragged down by its second benchmark result. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the K620 scores 5870, which is notably lower than its OpenCL score. The GT 1010 has no Vulkan benchmark listed, so a direct comparison on that API is impossible from the provided data.

The nearest rival data adds another layer of interpretation. The GT 1010 sits within 2% of several AMD mobile and professional parts, including the Radeon R7 M370 (6764, -1%) and the FirePro M5100 (6830, -1.9%). The K620’s nearest rivals are more surprising, as it is listed alongside the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both scoring 6270 (0.2% delta). This is an odd grouping that suggests the K620’s average score is artificially low relative to its OpenCL performance, or that the database’s nearest-rival algorithm is placing it near high-end cards with similar average scores due to anomalous data points.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GeForce GT 1010 uses the GP108 chip, a Pascal-generation design manufactured on Samsung’s 14 nm process. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a tiny 74 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip, a Maxwell-generation design built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It contains 1,870 million transistors spread across a much larger 148 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter. This means the GT 1010 has nearly twice the transistor density of the K620, illustrating the generational leap in manufacturing efficiency.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The GT 1010 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective speed of 6 Gbps. The K620 also has 2 GB, but it is slower DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s at 1800 Mbps effective. Despite having half the bus width, the GT 1010 offers 67% more memory bandwidth, which likely explains its slight OpenCL advantage in memory-sensitive workloads. The clock speeds also favor the GT 1010, with a base clock of 1228 MHz and boost of 1468 MHz, versus the K620’s 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost.

The core configurations are where the K620 theoretically should dominate. It has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, compared to the GT 1010’s 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to higher theoretical pixel and texture rates for the K620: 17.98 GPixel/s and 26.98 GTexel/s, versus 11.74 GPixel/s and 23.49 GTexel/s for the GT 1010. The K620 also has a higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS. Yet these advantages do not materialize in the OpenCL test, suggesting that the GT 1010’s faster memory and newer instruction set compensate for its smaller core.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GeForce GT 1010 wins decisively with 48.06 GB/s, compared to the Quadro K620’s 28.80 GB/s. This is despite the K620 having a 128-bit bus versus the GT 1010’s 64-bit bus, because the GT 1010 uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective while the K620 uses DDR3 at 1800 Mbps.

Q: Is the Quadro K620 significantly faster in raw compute?

A: The K620 has a higher theoretical FP32 rate of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS for the GT 1010, and it also has more shading units (384 vs 256). However, the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark shows the GT 1010 winning by 0.1%, meaning the theoretical advantage does not translate to a real-world win.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W, while the K620 is rated at 45 W. Both cards require no external power connectors and have a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: No. The GT 1010 is 147 mm (5.8 inches) long, while the K620 is 160 mm (6.3 inches) long and has a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches). Both are single-slot designs.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. This means the GT 1010 has a slightly higher feature level in DirectX.

Q: What is the performance percentile of each card?

A: The GT 1010 sits in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the K620 sits in the 36th percentile. This places both in the lower half of the performance spectrum, but the GT 1010 is slightly higher.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The process node is 14 nm (Samsung) for the GT 1010 versus 28 nm (TSMC) for the K620. Transistor count is similar at 1,800 million versus 1,870 million, but die size is drastically different at 74 mm² versus 148 mm². The GT 1010 has a higher transistor density of 24.3M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm².

Clock speeds favor the GT 1010 with a base of 1228 MHz and boost of 1468 MHz, against the K620’s 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory type differs: GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective for the GT 1010, versus DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective for the K620. The memory bus is 64-bit for the GT 1010 and 128-bit for the K620, but bandwidth is higher for the GT 1010 (48.06 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s).

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the K620: 384 vs 256, 24 vs 16, and 16 vs 8 respectively. Pixel rate is 11.74 GPixel/s for the GT 1010 versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the K620. Texture rate is 23.49 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s. FP32 is 751.6 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. TDP is 30 W versus 45 W.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the GT 1010 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K620. Display outputs are different, with the GT 1010 offering 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0, while the K620 has 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. The GT 1010 measures 147 mm in length, while the K620 is 160 mm long and 69 mm tall. Release dates are far apart: January 2021 for the GT 1010 versus July 2014 for the K620.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner: the GeForce GT 1010. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 0.1%, has a higher average benchmark score (6698 vs 6282), a better percentile ranking (38th vs 36th), and significantly higher memory bandwidth. The GT 1010 also achieves this with lower power consumption (30 W vs 45 W) and on a much smaller die.

However, the verdict is not a landslide. The K620’s theoretical compute advantages are real, and its 128-bit memory bus and 384 shading units suggest it may handle certain professional workloads better, particularly those that are not captured by the Geekbench OpenCL test. The K620’s Vulkan score of 5870 is a data point the GT 1010 cannot match because no corresponding test is listed, leaving a gap in the comparison.

For a buyer prioritizing peak benchmark performance, the GT 1010 is the choice. For a user who values the professional Quadro branding and potential driver certifications, the K620 might still appeal, but the data shows no performance justification for that choice in general compute.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GT 1010 wins in memory-intensive scenarios, as evidenced by its 48.06 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s. This is critical for texture-heavy games or OpenCL workloads that stream data. It also wins on efficiency, with a 30 W TDP versus 45 W, and on raw benchmark performance in the OpenCL test. The GT 1010’s newer PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, while narrower, offers higher per-lane bandwidth than the K620’s PCIe 2.0 x16.

The Quadro K620 wins in theoretical compute throughput, offering 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 751.6 GFLOPS, and higher pixel and texture rates (17.98 GPixel/s and 26.98 GTexel/s vs 11.74 and 23.49). This suggests it may be superior in workloads that are heavily shader-bound rather than memory-bound, such as certain CAD or scientific simulations. The K620 also has a wider 128-bit bus, which could reduce latency in some patterns, and its DisplayPort 1.2 output may be more suitable for professional monitors than the GT 1010’s mini-HDMI.

The Vulkan benchmark is a clear win for the K620, scoring 5870, but without a comparable GT 1010 result, the significance is unclear. The K620’s higher TDP and larger physical footprint are disadvantages, but for users with a PCIe 2.0 system, the x16 interface might be more compatible than the GT 1010’s x4. Ultimately, the GT 1010 wins the head-to-head, but the K620 retains niche advantages in raw shader throughput and display connectivity.