NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two professional workstation cards shows a decisive pattern: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins both benchmark comparisons outright, with no wins registered for the Quadro K620. The two shared tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and in both cases the margin is substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the Quadro K620's 6,693. That is a delta of -65% from the perspective of the K620, meaning the M4000 outperforms it by nearly three-fold. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further: the M4000 posts 24,640 while the K620 manages 5,870, a delta of -76.2%. The M4000's Vulkan result is more than four times higher than the K620's.

These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational and architectural chasm. The OpenCL test stresses general-purpose compute, while Vulkan exercises modern graphics API workloads. Both confirm that the M4000 operates in a different performance class. The K620's best recorded average benchmark score across all tests is 6,282, which places it at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The M4000's average benchmark score is 5,467, placing it at the 32nd percentile. Interestingly, the averages are counterintuitive: the K620 has a higher average score despite losing both head-to-head tests. This is because the M4000 has a wider range of benchmark results, including some low DirectX scores that drag its average down.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the K620's average score of 6,282 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both scoring 6,270. It is also 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6,327) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6,330). The M4000's average of 5,467 is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501), and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508). These nearest-rival comparisons show that both cards hover in a similar overall performance band when averaging all tests, but the head-to-head data reveals the M4000's clear superiority in the two tests both cards share.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins decisively, scoring 19,118 versus the Quadro K620's 6,693. The K620 trails by 65%.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare?

A: The M4000 scores 24,640 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the K620 scores 5,870. The M4000 leads by 76.2%, making this its largest head-to-head margin.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the K620 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the K620 and two wins for the M4000 across the shared tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The K620 has an average benchmark score of 6,282, while the M4000 has an average of 5,467. The M4000's lower average is due to additional benchmark results, including low DirectX scores, that are not part of the shared head-to-head set.

Q: How do these cards rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The K620 sits at the 36th percentile, while the M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head tests, the K620 ranks slightly higher overall because the M4000's extra test results include several low scores.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The K620 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The M4000's higher feature level reflects its newer architecture.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for compute and modern API workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the stronger card. Its 65% lead in OpenCL and 76.2% lead in Vulkan are overwhelming margins that no other metric in the head-to-head set can offset. The K620 has no recorded wins, so any argument for it must rest on factors outside the shared benchmarks.

However, the average benchmark scores complicate a simple recommendation. The K620's average of 6,282 exceeds the M4000's 5,467, and the K620 ranks at the 36th percentile versus the M4000's 32nd. This suggests that in certain legacy or DirectX-specific workloads not covered by the head-to-head tests, the K620 may hold its own. The M4000's PassMark DirectX 9 score of 113, DirectX 10 score of 33, and DirectX 11 score of 49 are low, dragging its average down. The K620 does not have those tests recorded, so its average reflects only the OpenCL and Vulkan results, which are higher relative to its overall class.

For a professional user prioritizing raw compute throughput and Vulkan-based applications, the M4000 is the clear choice. For workloads that align with the K620's specific strengths, particularly if they involve older DirectX paths, the K620's higher percentile ranking might be relevant. The data does not support the K620 as a general-purpose winner, but it does show that average scores can mislead when test coverage differs.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every hardware specification. The memory subsystem is a major differentiator: the K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000 offers four times the capacity and nearly seven times the bandwidth.

Compute resources also favor the M4000 heavily. The K620 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 17.98 GPixel/s on the K620 to 49.47 GPixel/s on the M4000. Texture rate jumps from 26.98 GTexel/s to 80.39 GTexel/s. FP32 performance rises from 863.2 GFLOPS on the K620 to 2.573 TFLOPS on the M4000.

Clocks differ as well. The K620 has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, while the M4000 has no base or boost clock recorded in the database. Memory clock rates are 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the K620 and 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the M4000.

Other differences include the bus interface: the K620 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, the M4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The K620 has no power connectors and a 45 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The M4000 requires a single 6-pin connector, has a 120 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The K620 measures 160 mm (6.3 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The M4000 is larger at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. Both are single-slot cards. Display outputs differ: the K620 has one DVI and one DisplayPort 1.2, while the M4000 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The K620 is built on the GM107 chip using NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, while the M4000 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon itself is very different in scale. The K620's GM107 packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The M4000's GM204 contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for a density of 13.1 million per mm². The M4000's chip is nearly 2.8 times larger in transistor count and 2.7 times larger in die area.

The architecture generations also differ in their DirectX feature levels. The K620's Maxwell supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the M4000's Maxwell 2.0 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those features were not part of the Maxwell era. The K620 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, while the M4000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation, despite both being Maxwell-based. The K620's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The M4000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal. Release dates differ: the K620 launched in 2014, the M4000 in 2015. Both cards are end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

The M4000 wins every shared benchmark, so the use-case split is straightforward for the recorded tests. In OpenCL compute workloads, the M4000's 65% advantage translates to faster general-purpose GPU computing, which matters for rendering, simulation, and data-parallel tasks. In Vulkan workloads, the 76.2% lead points to stronger modern graphics API performance, relevant for applications that leverage Vulkan for real-time visualization.

The K620's wins are not in the head-to-head data, but its higher average benchmark score and higher percentile ranking suggest it may perform better in scenarios not covered by the two shared tests. The M4000's low PassMark DirectX 9, 10, and 11 scores indicate that legacy DirectX applications could be a weak spot for it. The K620, with no recorded low DirectX scores, might be more consistent in older OpenGL or DirectX-based professional applications. Its lower TDP of 45 W versus 120 W also makes it a fit for systems with limited power delivery, especially given its lack of power connectors and 200 W suggested PSU.

The M4000's larger memory capacity (8 GB versus 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (192.3 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s) make it the choice for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-display setups with its four DisplayPort outputs. The K620's single DVI and single DisplayPort limit multi-monitor configurations. For users constrained by slot size, both cards are single-slot, but the K620 is shorter at 160 mm versus the M4000's 241 mm, which could matter in compact chassis.

In summary, the M4000 wins on raw performance, memory, and modern API support. The K620 wins on power efficiency, physical size, and potentially on legacy workload consistency, though the data does not quantify that advantage directly.