GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and NVIDIA Quadro K620 represent two distinct tiers of professional mobile and desktop graphics, separated by a significant performance gap despite sharing a common 28 nm manufacturing process. The benchmark data shows the M5000M as the clear performance leader, with the K620 positioned as an entry-level solution. The comparison is defined by the M5000M's overwhelming advantage in compute-oriented workloads, though the K620's lower power envelope and smaller physical footprint present a different set of trade-offs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two comparable benchmark results, and both show a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M5000M scores 22920 against the K620's 6693, resulting in a 242.4% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; the M5000M delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this general-purpose GPU workload, reflecting its substantially larger silicon and memory subsystem.

The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the M5000M records 24875 points, while the K620 manages only 5870. The delta reaches 323.8%, meaning the M5000M outperforms the K620 by a factor of over four in this graphics API workload. Vulkan's lower-level abstraction tends to expose architectural efficiency differences more directly, and the data indicates the M5000M's Maxwell 2.0 design with its full complement of execution resources is vastly better equipped to exploit the API's parallelism.

The average benchmark score across all tests reinforces this hierarchy. The M5000M posts an average of 6481, while the K620 averages 6282. Although the M5000M's average is only about 3.2% higher, this figure is skewed by the fact that the K620 has only two benchmark results in the dataset. The head-to-head deltas are the more reliable indicator of relative performance, and they point to an overwhelming M5000M victory. In terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs, the M5000M sits at the 37th percentile, while the K620 is at the 36th, a statistical near-tie that underscores how both parts are positioned in the lower half of the overall performance distribution despite their internal disparity.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The M5000M is built on the GM204 chip, which belongs to the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The K620 uses the GM107 chip, based on the original Maxwell architecture. This is not a minor revision; Maxwell 2.0 introduced significant changes to the memory controller and rasterizer compared to the first-generation Maxwell, which directly contributes to the M5000M's higher throughput.

The transistor counts tell a stark story. The M5000M's GM204 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the K620's GM107 contains only 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The M5000M integrates nearly three times as many transistors, and its die area is roughly 2.7 times larger. Transistor density is marginally higher on the M5000M at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm², indicating a slightly more efficient packing of logic units.

The execution resource counts amplify the difference. The M5000M features 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operations pipelines. The K620, by contrast, has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This represents a 4x advantage for the M5000M in shading units and TMUs, and a similar 4x lead in ROPs. These are not incremental differences; they define completely different performance classes.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of just 28.80 GB/s. The M5000M's memory bandwidth is over five times higher, which is critical for large dataset workloads and high-resolution rendering. Clock speeds slightly favor the K620, with a base of 1058 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz versus the M5000M's 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost, but this cannot compensate for the massive resource disparity.

Where Each One Wins

The M5000M wins both head-to-head benchmarks, so the "wins" tally is 2-0 in its favor. Its strengths are concentrated in compute-heavy and modern API-bound workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 22920 indicates strong performance in general-purpose GPU computing, which is relevant for simulation, scientific analysis, and other non-graphics parallel workloads. The Vulkan score of 24875 suggests it can handle contemporary graphics APIs with low overhead, making it suitable for real-time rendering tasks that leverage modern driver paths.

The K620, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has its own domain of applicability. Its 45 W TDP is less than half of the M5000M's 100 W, making it viable for compact, low-power workstations where thermal and power budgets are constrained. The K620's single-slot form factor and 160 mm length, 69 mm height, and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface make it a drop-in card for standard desktop motherboards. Its display outputs, which include 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, provide straightforward connectivity for professional monitors.

The M5000M's MXM Module form factor and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface indicate it is designed for mobile workstations, where it can deliver high-end performance in a laptop chassis. Its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs reflect the fact that the actual ports depend on the host laptop. This makes the M5000M the clear choice for mobile professionals who need maximum compute power, while the K620 serves fixed desktop setups with modest requirements.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The chip, architecture, and generation are all distinct: GM204 with Maxwell 2.0 and Quadro Maxwell-M generation for the M5000M; GM107 with Maxwell and Quadro Kepler generation for the K620. The process node is identical at 28 nm from TSMC, but the transistor count (5,200 million vs 1,870 million), die size (398 mm² vs 148 mm²), and transistor density (13.1M vs 12.6M per mm²) all favor the M5000M.

Clock speeds differ, with the K620 running higher at 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost versus the M5000M's 962 MHz and 1051 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the M5000M runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while the K620 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. Memory capacity (8 GB vs 2 GB), type (GDDR5 vs DDR3), bus width (256-bit vs 128-bit), and bandwidth (160.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s) all heavily favor the M5000M.

Compute rates follow the same pattern. The M5000M delivers 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate, 100.9 GTexel/s texture rate, and 3.229 TFLOPS FP32. The K620 delivers 17.98 GPixel/s, 26.98 GTexel/s, and 863.2 GFLOPS FP32. The M5000M is roughly 3.7x faster in pixel throughput, 3.7x faster in texture throughput, and 3.7x faster in FP32 compute. TDP differs significantly at 100 W for the M5000M versus 45 W for the K620. The K620 has a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the M5000M has no such specification. The M5000M uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, while the K620 is single-slot with no power connectors and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The DirectX support differs: the M5000M supports 12 (12_1), while the K620 supports 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has 3.229 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 has 863.2 GFLOPS. The M5000M is approximately 3.7 times faster in single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The M5000M provides 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus, while the K620 provides 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit DDR3 bus. The M5000M's bandwidth is over five times higher.

Q: What is the difference in the Geekbench Vulkan scores?

A: The M5000M scores 24875, and the K620 scores 5870. This gives the M5000M a 323.8% advantage in Vulkan performance.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The M5000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip, while the K620 uses the first-generation Maxwell architecture on the GM107 chip. The M5000M's generation is listed as Quadro Maxwell-M, and the K620's is Quadro Kepler.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The M5000M has a TDP of 100 W, and the K620 has a TDP of 45 W. The K620 also lists a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the M5000M does not specify one.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6481, and the K620 has an average of 6282. The M5000M's average is about 3.2% higher.