NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the clear performance victor over the NVIDIA Quadro K620, with benchmark results showing a decisive generational leap. In the two available head-to-head tests, the P2000 wins both, dominating in compute and graphics API workloads by substantial margins. The K620, while functional, is firmly in a lower performance tier, as reflected by its average benchmark score and its placement among rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data from the head-to-head comparison is unambiguous: the Quadro P2000 outperforms the Quadro K620 in every measured category. The most significant gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the P2000 scores 23,566 against the K620's 5,870. This represents a delta of -75.1% for the K620, meaning the P2000 is roughly three times faster in this API workload. This is a massive advantage for the P2000 and suggests it is far better equipped for modern graphics applications that leverage Vulkan.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P2000 again takes a commanding lead, scoring 20,125 compared to the K620's 6,693. The delta here is -66.7% for the K620, indicating the P2000 delivers approximately triple the compute performance. This result is consistent with the hardware specifications, which show the P2000 has significantly more shading units and a higher FP32 throughput. The K620's average benchmark score of 6,282 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6,270) and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6,270), with a negligible delta of 0.2%. However, this comparison is misleading, as those rival GPUs are likely being held back by other system bottlenecks. The P2000's average score of 6,049 is similarly close to its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077) and RTX A400 (6,078), with deltas under 1%.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two Quadro cards is vast, representing two distinct generations of NVIDIA design. The K620 is built on the Maxwell architecture, utilizing the GM107 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the P2000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP106 chip, produced on a newer and more efficient 16 nm process, also by TSMC. This process shrink allows the P2000 to pack a significantly larger and more complex chip.

The transistor counts highlight the scale of this difference. The K620 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The P2000, on the other hand, contains 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.0M / mm². This is more than double the transistor count and a nearly 75% higher density, which is a primary driver for the P2000's superior performance. The memory technology also differs fundamentally, with the K620 using 2 GB of DDR3 and the P2000 using 5 GB of GDDR5, a faster and more modern standard.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Quadro P2000 is the winner in all performance-oriented scenarios. Its massive leads in both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks, 3D rendering, and modern graphics applications. The P2000's superior memory bandwidth of 140.2 GB/s, compared to the K620's 28.80 GB/s, suggests it can handle much larger datasets and more complex textures without becoming a bottleneck. The higher pixel rate (59.20 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s) and texture rate (94.72 GTexel/s vs 26.98 GTexel/s) also point to significantly faster rasterization and texturing capabilities.

There is no benchmark category where the K620 wins outright. Its only potential advantage lies in its lower power draw. The K620 has a TDP of 45 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the P2000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. For a system with strict power or thermal constraints, the K620 might be the only viable option, but this comes at a massive cost in performance. The P2000 also offers a more modern feature set with support for DirectX 12 (12_1) compared to the K620's DirectX 12 (11_0), making it more future-proof for newer software.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification, reflecting their different generations and performance classes. The most striking difference is in the GPU configuration: the K620 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. This 2.7x increase in shaders and 2.5x increase in ROPs directly translates into the observed performance advantage.

Memory is another major divider. The K620 offers 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the P2000 provides 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. This is a nearly 5x increase in memory bandwidth, which is critical for professional workloads. Clock speeds also differ, with the P2000 having a higher base clock (1076 MHz vs 1058 MHz) and a significantly higher boost clock (1480 MHz vs 1124 MHz). The P2000's FP32 performance is listed at 3.031 TFLOPS, a figure that dwarfs the K620's 863.2 GFLOPS. The bus interface also advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 on the K620 to PCIe 3.0 x16 on the P2000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is significantly faster, scoring 20,125 compared to the Quadro K620's 6,693. This is a -66.7% delta for the K620.

Q: Is the Quadro P2000 better for Vulkan applications?

A: Yes, the data shows a clear advantage. The P2000 scores 23,566 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, while the K620 scores 5,870, a -75.1% delta for the K620.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 160-bit bus and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro K620 has a TDP of 45 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 4,400 million transistors, more than double the 1,870 million found in the Quadro K620.

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

A: The Quadro K620 has an average benchmark score of 6,282, while the Quadro P2000 has an average score of 6,049.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is straightforward based on the performance data. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior product in every benchmark category, offering roughly three times the performance in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Its architectural advantages — a newer Pascal design, more shaders, faster GDDR5 memory, and a wider memory bus — make it the only rational choice for any professional task that requires graphics or compute performance. The K620, with its older Maxwell architecture and limited memory, simply cannot compete.

The only scenario where the K620 might be considered is in a system with a strict 200 W power supply limit or where the 45 W TDP is a hard constraint. However, for any workload where performance matters, the P2000's 75 W TDP and 250 W PSU recommendation are a minor trade-off for a massive increase in capability. The data is conclusive: the P2000 is the definitive winner, and the K620 is a legacy part that is outclassed by a wide margin. Users seeking a capable professional GPU should choose the P2000 without hesitation, as the K620's performance deficit is too large to ignore.