NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server are separated by more than a decade of GPU architecture, yet benchmark data places them within a narrow performance band according to the available metrics. The K620, a Maxwell-era entry workstation card from 2014, and the RTX PRO 6000, a 2025 Blackwell server accelerator, represent opposite ends of the professional GPU spectrum, but their recorded average scores and percentile rankings tell a surprisingly close story. This analysis relies strictly on the provided fact pack to compare their architectures, benchmark results, and use-case suitability.

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the Quadro K620 and RTX PRO 6000 compare?

A: The Quadro K620 has an average benchmark score of 6282, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has an average score of 5996. The K620 is 286 points higher, a difference of roughly 4.8% based on the provided figures.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card, and how do they compare?

A: The K620’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, which scores 6330 with a deltaPct of -0.8%, meaning the K620 is 0.8% slower. The RTX PRO 6000’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4100, scoring 5987 with a deltaPct of 0.2%, meaning the RTX PRO 6000 is 0.2% faster.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K620 ranks in the 36th percentile, while the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server ranks in the 34th percentile. The K620 sits two percentile points higher in the database.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the RTX PRO 6000 features 96 GB of GDDR7 memory. The RTX PRO 6000 offers 48 times the memory capacity.

Q: What is the difference in transistor count and process node?

A: The K620 uses 1,870 million transistors on a 28 nm process, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses 92,200 million transistors on a 5 nm process. The RTX PRO 6000 has roughly 49 times the transistor count.

Q: Are there any head-to-head benchmark results between the two cards?

A: The fact pack lists no head-to-head benchmark entries, with winsA and winsB both set to 0. The comparison relies on their individual benchmark scores: the K620’s Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results versus the RTX PRO 6000’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two NVIDIA cards is vast. The Quadro K620 is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB202 chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at the same foundry. This newer chip contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, achieving a density of 122.9 million transistors per mm².

The core configurations differ dramatically. The K620 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). It has no dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. In contrast, the RTX PRO 6000 features 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 188 ray tracing cores, and 752 tensor cores. The shading unit count alone is 63 times higher on the RTX PRO 6000.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The K620 runs at a base clock of 1058 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz. The RTX PRO 6000 has a base clock of 1590 MHz and a boost clock of 2617 MHz. Memory architecture is another major divergence: the K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus. The memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the K620 versus 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) for the RTX PRO 6000. The RTX PRO 6000 also supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) compared to the K620’s DirectX 12 (11_0).

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data suggests distinct strengths. The Quadro K620 wins on raw average score and percentile ranking. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6693 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870 show strong performance in compute and cross-platform graphics workloads. The K620 also wins on power efficiency in terms of absolute wattage, drawing 45 W compared to the RTX PRO 6000’s 600 W, though the fact pack does not include performance-per-watt calculations.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server wins in nearly every absolute hardware specification. It has 48 times the memory capacity, 63 times the shading units, and a 64 times wider memory bus (512-bit versus 128-bit). Its memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s dwarfs the K620’s 28.80 GB/s, a difference of over 62 times. The RTX PRO 6000 also has dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, enabling workloads the K620 cannot handle at all. Its pixel rate of 502.5 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1,968.0 GTexel/s are vastly higher than the K620’s 17.98 GPixel/s and 26.98 GTexel/s.

In terms of production status, the K620 is end-of-life, while the RTX PRO 6000 is active. The RTX PRO 6000 also has a more modern interface, PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16, and supports four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs compared to the K620’s single DVI and single DisplayPort 1.2.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field in the fact pack. The process node drops from 28 nm to 5 nm. Transistor count jumps from 1,870 million to 92,200 million. Die size increases from 148 mm² to 750 mm². Transistor density rises from 12.6M per mm² to 122.9M per mm².

Clock speeds: base clock rises from 1058 MHz to 1590 MHz, boost clock from 1124 MHz to 2617 MHz. Memory size goes from 2 GB to 96 GB, type from DDR3 to GDDR7, bus width from 128-bit to 512-bit, and bandwidth from 28.80 GB/s to 1.79 TB/s.

Core counts: shading units increase from 384 to 24,064, TMUs from 24 to 752, and ROPs from 16 to 192. The RTX PRO 6000 adds 188 ray tracing cores and 752 tensor cores, which the K620 lacks entirely. Pixel rate rises from 17.98 GPixel/s to 502.5 GPixel/s, texture rate from 26.98 GTexel/s to 1,968.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute from 863.2 GFLOPS to 126.0 TFLOPS. The RTX PRO 6000 also lists FP16 at 126.0 TFLOPS (1:1), while the K620 has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. TDP goes from 45 W to 600 W, slot width from single-slot to dual-slot, and power connectors from none to a single 16-pin connector. Suggested PSU jumps from 200 W to 1000 W. Dimensions increase from 160 mm length and 69 mm height to 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width. The bus interface advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 5.0 x16, and display outputs change from 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 to 4x DisplayPort 2.1b.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

With no direct head-to-head benchmark entries, the comparison relies on each card’s individual test results. The Quadro K620 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 6693 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server records a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5996. These tests measure different workloads, making a direct apples-to-apples comparison impossible from the data alone.

The average benchmark scores provide the clearest comparison. The K620’s average of 6282 puts it ahead of the RTX PRO 6000’s 5996 by 286 points. This positions the K620 within 0.2% of the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, both scoring 6270. The RTX PRO 6000 sits within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 770M (6000) and AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001), and within 0.2% of the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987) and Quadro K4000M (5986).

The percentile rankings reinforce this pattern. The K620’s 36th percentile and the RTX PRO 6000’s 34th percentile both place them in the lower-middle range of the database, despite the massive hardware differences. The K620’s two benchmark results are both above 5800, while the RTX PRO 6000’s single result is just under 6000. This suggests that in the specific workloads tested, the older card holds its own or edges ahead, though the fact pack does not clarify the conditions or driver versions used.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the provided data, the Quadro K620 is the better choice if the primary criterion is the recorded average benchmark score and percentile ranking. It scores 6282, outperforming the RTX PRO 6000’s 5996 by 4.8%, and ranks two percentile points higher. For legacy applications that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the K620’s specific scores of 6693 and 5870 demonstrate capability in those areas.

However, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the only rational choice for modern, demanding server workloads. The specification sheet shows a 48-fold increase in memory capacity, a 64-fold increase in memory bandwidth, and a 146-fold increase in FP32 compute (126.0 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS). It adds ray tracing and tensor cores, supports PCIe 5.0, and is an active product with a successor already listed (Server Rubin). The K620 is end-of-life with a predecessor from the Quadro Fermi era.

The power envelope tells a similar story. The RTX PRO 6000 requires 600 W and a 1000 W PSU, while the K620 draws only 45 W and needs a 200 W PSU. A builder prioritizing energy efficiency and low heat output would favor the K620, but that advantage comes with severe limits in memory and compute capacity.

The data presents a paradox: the older, smaller card wins on the recorded benchmarks, but the newer card wins on every absolute hardware metric. The interpretation is straightforward. For legacy compatibility, low power draw, and existing OpenCL/Vulkan workloads, the K620 is adequate. For any serious compute, AI, ray tracing, or high-memory server task, the RTX PRO 6000 is the only option that can physically handle the job, regardless of its lower average benchmark score in the fact pack. The benchmark scores likely reflect different test suites, and the RTX PRO 6000’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result does not capture its capabilities in FP16, tensor, or ray tracing workloads, which the fact pack lists but does not benchmark. Choose the K620 for simple, low-power display or legacy tasks; choose the RTX PRO 6000 for anything requiring modern server-grade performance.