NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K620M and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the K3100M posts a score of 6154, while the K620M achieves 5957. The K3100M leads by 3.2%, a modest but clear advantage in raw compute throughput. This single test result defines the entire head-to-head picture, with the K3100M securing one win and the K620M none.

The OpenCL score reflects general-purpose GPU compute performance, not gaming or graphics-specific workloads. A 3.2% gap is relatively narrow, suggesting that the two mobile workstation parts are closely matched in this particular API workload. The K620M, despite its lower transistor count and smaller die, comes within striking distance of the larger K3100M. However, the K3100M's higher shading unit count, 768 versus 384, and its wider memory interface likely contribute to the edge in this test.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the K620M's average benchmark score is 5957, which places it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The K3100M's average across three tests, including OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan, is 5154, landing in the 30th percentile. The K3100M's OpenCL score of 6154 is its strongest result, while its Metal score of 3823 and Vulkan score of 5484 pull the average down. This indicates that the K3100M is not uniformly faster across all APIs; its OpenCL performance is its high point, while the K620M only has an OpenCL result recorded.

The nearest rivals for the K620M include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M with an average score of 5955, a negligible 0% delta, and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970, where the K620M trails by 0.2%. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982, putting the K620M 0.4% behind. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5929, with the K620M ahead by 0.5%. These deltas show that the K620M sits in a tightly contested cluster where a few points separate competitors.

For the K3100M, the nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161, a 0.1% gap, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211, where the K3100M trails by 1.1%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5236, a 1.6% deficit for the K3100M. The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, with the K3100M ahead by 1.8%. These figures indicate that the K3100M's average is dragged down by its non-OpenCL results, but its OpenCL score of 6154 would place it well above these rivals in that specific test.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the superior choice for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 6154 score beats the K620M's 5957 by 3.2%, and it offers double the shading units, four times the texture mapping units, and four times the ROPs. The K3100M also carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the K620M's 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at 16.02 GB/s. These hardware advantages are consistent with the benchmark result.

However, the K620M is not without merit. It achieves its score with a 30 W TDP versus 75 W for the K3100M, making it a far more power-efficient part. The K620M also has a higher base clock, 1029 MHz versus 706 MHz, and a boost clock of 1124 MHz versus 706 MHz for the K3100M, which has no boost. The K620M's Maxwell architecture is a newer design than the K3100M's Kepler, which may explain its competitive showing despite far fewer resources.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL, the K3100M is the clear pick. For those constrained by power budgets or requiring a smaller MXM-A module, the K620M offers a compelling alternative with nearly equivalent OpenCL results. The K3100M's higher average across its full test suite, if one weighs all three recorded benchmarks, is less favorable, but its OpenCL strength is decisive in the head-to-head.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in their underlying silicon. The K620M uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, while the K3100M uses the GK104 chip on the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The K620M packs 1,020 million transistors into a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per mm². The K3100M contains 3,540 million transistors across a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per mm². The K3100M's die is nearly four times larger, but the K620M achieves higher density, reflecting the newer Maxwell design's efficiency improvements.

Memory configurations could hardly be more different. The K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s, a 6.4-fold advantage in memory throughput. This bandwidth disparity is the most significant architectural gap between the two.

Compute resources also favor the K3100M heavily. The K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The K3100M doubles the shading units to 768, quadruples TMUs to 64, and quadruples ROPs to 32. The K3100M's pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the K620M, and its texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. The K3100M's FP32 throughput is 1,084.4 GFLOPS, exceeding the K620M's 863.2 GFLOPS by roughly 25.6%.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The K620M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the K3100M is locked at 706 MHz with no boost. The K620M's higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores, explaining the narrow 3.2% OpenCL gap. The K620M also supports a slightly newer Vulkan version, 1.4 versus 1.2.175 for the K3100M, though both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The K620M draws 30 W, while the K3100M draws 75 W, a 150% increase. The K620M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the K3100M uses the larger MXM-B (3.0). Neither requires auxiliary power connectors, and both are marked as end-of-life products. The K620M launched later, in 2015, while the K3100M came in 2013, but both share the same predecessor, Quadro Fermi-M, and successor, Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957. The K3100M leads by 3.2%.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, a substantial gap in favor of the K3100M.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The K620M has a TDP of 30 W, while the K3100M has a TDP of 75 W. The K620M is the more power-efficient option.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The K3100M has 768 shading units, double the K620M's 384. The K3100M also has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the K620M.

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 K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The K620M has a slightly newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The K620M has an average benchmark score of 5957 from its single OpenCL test. The K3100M has an average of 5154 across three tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan), though its OpenCL score alone is 6154.

Where Each One Wins

The K3100M is the clear winner in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. Its 6154 score beats the K620M's 5957, and its hardware resources, including 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, make it better suited for tasks that scale with parallel throughput and memory access. The 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer also provides more headroom for large datasets. This GPU is the choice for professional applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration and demand maximum bandwidth.

The K620M wins on efficiency and compactness. Its 30 W TDP is less than half of the K3100M's 75 W, making it ideal for slim mobile workstations where thermal and power constraints are tight. The K620M's Maxwell architecture delivers near-parity OpenCL performance despite far fewer cores, thanks to higher clocks, 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, and a more modern design. Its MXM-A form factor is smaller than the K3100M's MXM-B, offering more flexibility in system integration.

For users who need Vulkan support, the K620M edges ahead with Vulkan 1.4 versus the K3100M's 1.2.175. The K3100M does have additional benchmark coverage, including Metal and Vulkan results, but its Metal score of 3823 is notably lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting weaker performance in that API. The K620M has no recorded Metal or Vulkan results, so cross-API comparisons remain limited.

In summary, the K3100M is the performance leader for OpenCL and memory-intensive tasks, while the K620M is the efficiency champion with comparable compute scores at a fraction of the power. The choice depends on whether raw throughput or power economy takes priority in the target workstation.