NVIDIA Quadro K620 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA T600 compare to the NVIDIA Quadro K620 in overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA T600 has an average benchmark score of 7035, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6282. This places the T600 about 12% higher in aggregate performance, and the T600 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 36th percentile for the K620.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA T600 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the T600 scores 27875 versus 6693 for the K620, a 316.5% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Quadro K620 beats the T600?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the T600 wins both recorded tests. The K620 has no victories in the database's paired benchmark set.

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

A: The T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K620 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their architectures differ in terms of process technology?

A: The T600 is built on TSMC's 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The K620 uses TSMC's 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: What is the pixel throughput difference between the two?

A: The T600 has a pixel rate of 42.72 GPixel/s, which is over 2.3 times the K620's 17.98 GPixel/s. The T600 also leads in texture rate at 53.40 GTexel/s versus 26.98 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA T600 and NVIDIA Quadro K620 come from different architectural generations, and the data shows a substantial generational leap in most compute characteristics.

The T600 is based on the TU117 chip using the Turing architecture, belonging to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. The K620 uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, from the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation. This is not a small incremental step; Turing introduced a fundamentally different shader and memory subsystem compared to Maxwell.

Process technology is a major differentiator. The T600 is fabricated on a 12 nm process, while the K620 uses 28 nm. The transistor counts reflect this: the T600 packs 4,700 million transistors versus 1,870 million for the K620. Interestingly, the T600's die size (200 mm²) is larger than the K620's (148 mm²), but the transistor density tells the real story: the T600 achieves 23.5 million transistors per mm², nearly double the K620's 12.6 million per mm². This density advantage enables the T600 to fit more compute resources without a corresponding increase in power draw.

The compute core counts differ significantly. The T600 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K620 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, the T600 has 67% to 100% more resources. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely purely on conventional rasterization and compute pipelines.

Clock behavior also diverges. The K620 has a higher base clock at 1058 MHz, but its boost clock is only 1124 MHz. The T600 has a lower base clock at 735 MHz, but boosts to 1335 MHz. This means the T600's boost clock is 211 MHz higher than the K620's, and the relative boost range is much wider (81.6% increase from base versus just 6.2% for the K620). The T600 is clearly designed to spend more time at elevated clocks under load.

Memory architecture is another major split. The T600 uses GDDR6 memory running at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The K620 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding only 28.80 GB/s over the same 128-bit bus. The bandwidth gap is enormous: the T600 provides more than 5.5 times the memory bandwidth. This is likely a dominant factor in the benchmark deltas, as many compute workloads are memory-bound.

The display outputs also differ. The T600 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K620 provides 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. This makes the T600 better suited for multi-display workstations out of the box.

Power characteristics are close but not identical. The T600 has a TDP of 40 W, while the K620 is rated at 45 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The T600 achieves its higher performance within a lower power envelope, which is a notable efficiency improvement from the newer process node.

The bus interface differs as well: the T600 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K620 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This affects data transfer rates between CPU and GPU, though for most workloads the impact is smaller than the memory bandwidth difference.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear winner in the NVIDIA T600. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, with a 316.5% advantage in OpenCL and a 335.8% advantage in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 7035 is 12% higher than the K620's 6282. For any workload that depends on compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or modern API features, the T600 is the superior choice.

The Quadro K620's advantages are limited to its physical dimensions and legacy compatibility. It is shorter (160 mm versus the T600's unspecified length) and has a slightly higher base clock. However, none of these translate into benchmark wins. The K620's DirectX support is capped at 12 (11_0) versus the T600's 12 (12_1), and its memory bandwidth is a fraction of the T600's.

Who should pick the T600? Users running modern workstation applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, those needing multiple DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and anyone dealing with large datasets that benefit from 4 GB of GDDR6 memory. The T600 also fits into a 40 W power envelope, making it suitable for compact systems.

Who should pick the K620? The only scenario supported by the data is a legacy deployment where the shorter card length (160 mm) matters for chassis compatibility, or where the higher base clock (1058 MHz) is somehow preferable despite the lower boost clock. Even then, the K620's 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and 2 GB memory capacity are serious limitations for contemporary workloads. The K620's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at nearly identical performance (0.8% delta), suggesting it competes with older low-end workstation parts, not with the T600.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two cards differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA T600 | NVIDIA Quadro K620 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | TU117 | GM107 |

| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell |

| Generation | Quadro Turing (Tx000) | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 735 MHz | 1058 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1335 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 42.72 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 53.40 GTexel/s | 26.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.709 TFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 40 W | 45 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Length | Unspecified | 160 mm (6.3 inches) |

| Height | Unspecified | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2014-07-21 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Quadro Maxwell |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two paired benchmark comparisons, and the T600 dominates both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the T600 scores 27875 against the K620's 6693. The delta is 316.5%, meaning the T600 delivers more than four times the OpenCL performance. This is a massive gap, far larger than the 12% difference in average benchmark scores would suggest. The likely contributors are the T600's 5.5x memory bandwidth advantage, its 67% more shading units, and its much higher boost clock of 1335 MHz versus 1124 MHz.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the T600 scores 25580 versus 5870 for the K620, a delta of 335.8%. The T600's Vulkan advantage is even larger than its OpenCL advantage. The K620's Vulkan support is technically present (API version 1.4), but its Maxwell architecture appears to handle the workload far less efficiently. The T600's Turing architecture was designed with modern API features in mind, including DirectX 12_1 support, which likely contributes to its Vulkan strength.

The T600's average benchmark score of 7035 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7157, with the T600 trailing by 1.7%) and ahead of the GeForce GTX 680M (7023, leading by 0.2%). The K620's average score of 6282 puts it in a very different performance tier, close to the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 (6330, trailing by 0.8%) and the Radeon R7 M350 (6327, trailing by 0.7%).

The T600's percentile ranking of 39 versus the K620's 36 might seem like a small gap, but the raw scores tell a more nuanced story. The T600's average score is 12% higher, which is meaningful in workstation terms. For compute-heavy tasks measured by OpenCL and Vulkan, the gap is far more dramatic, approaching four to five times the performance.

Looking at the T600's individual benchmark results, its Passmark G3D score is 6479, and its Passmark GPU compute score is 2402. The K620 has no recorded Passmark results in the database, so direct comparison in those tests is not possible. The T600 also shows a Passmark G2D score of 756, indicating its 2D performance is respectable for a workstation card.

The T600's FP32 throughput of 1.709 TFLOPS is double the K620's 863.2 GFLOPS. The T600 additionally offers FP16 support at 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the K620 has no recorded FP16 capability. For workloads that can use reduced precision, the T600 provides another option that the K620 simply lacks.

The T600's texture rate of 53.40 GTexel/s is nearly double the K620's 26.98 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 42.72 GPixel/s is 2.4 times the K620's 17.98 GPixel/s. These fill rate advantages translate directly to rendering performance in applications that are fill-limited.

In summary, the T600 wins every recorded benchmark by a wide margin, with the smallest delta being the 12% average score difference and the largest being the 335.8% Vulkan advantage. The K620's only recorded wins are in physical dimensions and base clock frequency, neither of which affects application performance in the measured tests.