NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, scoring 5,957 against 5,211, a 14.3% advantage. This places the K620M in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M sits in the 30th percentile, confirming that the newer Maxwell-based mobile workstation part delivers better compute performance despite its lower power envelope and smaller die.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5,957 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. The K620M leads by 14.3%.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K620M is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955, 0% delta) and slightly behind the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970, -0.2%). The Quadro 4000M is closest to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5,236, -0.5%) and trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5,284, -1.4%).

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the K620M has 16.02 GB/s. The 4000M's GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus provide substantially more bandwidth than the K620M's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor counts of these two chips?

A: The Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip with 1,950 million transistors, while the K620M uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The K620M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 4000M achieves 6.650 GPixel/s. The K620M leads by approximately 35% in pixel throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K620M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000M has no recorded Vulkan support.

Architecture Differences

The K620M and Quadro 4000M represent two distinct NVIDIA architectures separated by a full generation. The K620M is built on Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, while the Quadro 4000M uses Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip. This architectural gap explains most of the performance differences observed in the benchmark data.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The K620M is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The newer 28 nm node allows the K620M to achieve a transistor density of 13.2M per mm² on a 77 mm² die, compared to the Quadro 4000M's 5.9M per mm² on a 332 mm² die. Interestingly, the Quadro 4000M packs nearly twice the total transistors (1,950 million vs. 1,020 million) but on a much larger die, resulting in lower density.

Clock behavior differs as well. The K620M has a recorded base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database, only a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The K620M's memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystems are strikingly different. The K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s. This gives the Quadro 4000M a 5x bandwidth advantage, a key factor in memory-intensive workloads.

Shader configurations also differ. The K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro 4000M has substantially more texture and pixel processing hardware.

Power consumption shows a major divergence: the K620M is rated at 30 W TDP, while the Quadro 4000M is rated at 100 W. Both use MXM modules, but the K620M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The K620M scores 5,957, and the Quadro 4000M scores 5,211, giving the K620M a 14.3% victory. This is the only direct comparison available, and it clearly favors the newer Maxwell part.

The K620M's 5,957 score places it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M's 5,211 places it in the 30th percentile. The 4-percentile gap reflects a modest but consistent performance advantage for the K620M across the broader GPU landscape.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The K620M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5,955, a 0% delta, meaning the K620M is effectively tied with that part. It also sits within 0.5% of the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929) and within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982). The Quadro 4000M's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, scores 5,236, just 0.5% ahead. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X trails by 1% at 5,161, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M trails by 1.1% at 5,154.

The 14.3% delta between the K620M and Quadro 4000M is larger than the gaps seen among their respective rival clusters. This suggests the architectural generational leap from Fermi to Maxwell provides a meaningful compute advantage that is not merely a statistical artifact.

In terms of raw throughput figures, the K620M leads in FP32 compute with 863.2 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS, a 35% advantage. The K620M also leads in pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s vs. 6.650 GPixel/s). However, the Quadro 4000M leads in texture rate with 26.60 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, a 48% advantage that reflects its 56 TMUs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K620M for general compute workloads. Its 14.3% OpenCL score advantage, higher FP32 throughput, and better pixel fill rate demonstrate that the Maxwell architecture delivers superior compute efficiency despite using fewer total transistors and consuming only 30 W compared to 100 W.

The Quadro 4000M retains advantages in specific areas: memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s vs. 16.02 GB/s), texture fill rate (26.60 GTexel/s vs. 17.98 GTexel/s), and ROP count (32 vs. 8). These strengths suggest the Quadro 4000M could handle certain texture-heavy or memory-bandwidth-bound workloads better, though the recorded OpenCL benchmark does not reflect such a scenario.

For users seeking an end-of-life mobile workstation GPU with better compute performance per watt, the K620M is the clear choice from the available data. It achieves higher benchmark scores while drawing one-third of the power. For workloads that depend heavily on memory bandwidth or texture throughput, the Quadro 4000M's larger memory bus and TMU count remain relevant, but the overall performance picture favors the K620M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K620M | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Chip | GM108S | GF104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 336 |

| TMUs | 16 | 56 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 6.650 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 26.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 638.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 100 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |

| Release Date | 2015-02-28 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Quadro Kepler-M |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins in compute-oriented scenarios. Its 14.3% higher OpenCL score, 35% higher FP32 throughput (863.2 vs. 638.4 GFLOPS), and 35% higher pixel rate (8.992 vs. 6.650 GPixel/s) make it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute, rendering tasks that rely on shader throughput, and workloads where power efficiency matters. The 30 W TDP makes it suitable for thinner mobile workstations compared to the 100 W Quadro 4000M.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in memory-bandwidth-heavy and texture-intensive workloads. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s represents a 5x advantage, which matters for large framebuffers, high-resolution textures, and data-heavy compute. The 56 TMUs drive a 48% higher texture rate (26.60 vs. 17.98 GTexel/s), and the 32 ROPs provide more pixel processing parallelism than the K620M's 8 ROPs.

The release dates reinforce the generational gap: the Quadro 4000M launched in 2011, while the K620M arrived in 2015. The K620M's successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the Quadro 4000M's successor is Quadro Kepler-M, placing them at opposite ends of NVIDIA's mobile workstation lineup evolution. The K620M supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support, making the K620M more future-proof for modern API-based applications.