NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains a single shared workload between these two professional mobile and desktop graphics cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M manages 5,957 points. That means the M4000 outperforms the K620M by 68.8% in this compute-oriented test. The delta is vast, and it reflects a fundamental gulf in hardware capability rather than a close contest.

Looking at the K620M's placement among its nearest rivals, its score of 5,957 sits within a tight cluster. The AMD Radeon HD 8730M averages 5,955, a 0% difference. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5,970, which places the K620M 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 averages 5,982, a 0.4% gap. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5,929, putting the K620M 0.5% ahead. The K620M is essentially at parity with these peers, neither leading nor trailing by a meaningful margin. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 34, meaning it sits in the lower third of the database.

The M4000, by contrast, holds a score that places it well above the K620M, yet its own nearest rivals tell a more nuanced story. The M4000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 5,467, which is lower than its OpenCL result alone because the database includes multiple workloads. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483, a 0.3% gap against the M4000. The AMD Radeon 610M scores 5,444, leaving the M4000 0.4% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M averages 5,501, a 0.6% deficit for the M4000. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5,508, which is 0.7% higher than the M4000's average. The M4000's percentile rank is 32, slightly below the K620M's 34, despite the M4000's far superior OpenCL score. This is because the M4000's average is pulled down by weaker results in other tests, such as Passmark DirectX 9 at 113 and Passmark G2D at 673.

The single head-to-head benchmark is unambiguous: the M4000 wins that contest outright. The K620M records zero wins in the database, while the M4000 records one win. Every other comparison must rely on the broader benchmark suite recorded for the M4000 alone, which shows strong performance in Vulkan and OpenCL but weaker results in legacy DirectX tests. The data indicates that the M4000 is a substantially faster compute device in isolation, but its overall average score is moderated by its varied workload results.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice for different use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the superior performer in compute-heavy tasks, particularly in OpenCL where it delivers a score over three times higher than the K620M. Anyone running GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, or scientific workloads should select the M4000 without hesitation. Its 68.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not marginal; it is a decisive advantage that will translate into noticeably shorter processing times.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M, on the other hand, is not competitive in raw compute. Its OpenCL score of 5,957 places it in the same bracket as integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs. However, its low power draw of 30 W and MXM module form factor make it suitable for compact or portable workstations where the M4000's 120 W requirement and single-slot footprint are impractical. The K620M also has a lower percentile rank in the database at 34, but that rank is based on a single benchmark, so it does not reflect the same breadth of testing as the M4000.

For a desktop workstation with room for a full-height card and a 300 W power supply, the M4000 is the only rational pick from these two. For a thin-and-light mobile workstation, the K620M is the feasible option, but the data shows it will lag far behind in compute performance. The M4000's average benchmark score of 5,467 across ten tests also indicates consistency: it handles DirectX 11 at 49, DirectX 10 at 33, and G3D at 6,680, which are respectable numbers for a professional card of its generation. The K620M has no such breadth of recorded data, so its capabilities outside OpenCL remain undocumented in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a common foundry and process node but diverge sharply in scale and design. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The K620M uses the GM108S chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the M4000 uses the GM204 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The transistor counts tell the story: the K620M has 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The M4000 packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The density is nearly identical, but the M4000's die is over five times larger, housing far more compute resources.

The K620M's generation is listed as "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)", while the M4000 belongs to "Quadro Maxwell (Mx000)". This naming reflects the product line positioning: the K620M is a mobile-focused part, and the M4000 is a desktop-oriented card. The memory subsystems are completely different. The K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 12-fold increase in bandwidth, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and large data sets.

The compute core counts amplify the gap. The K620M features 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The M4000 features 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate for the K620M is 8.992 GPixel/s, while the M4000 achieves 49.47 GPixel/s. Texture rate for the K620M is 17.98 GTexel/s, while the M4000 reaches 80.39 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 863.2 GFLOPS for the K620M versus 2.573 TFLOPS for the M4000. The M4000 is roughly three times faster in raw floating-point throughput, matching the OpenCL benchmark delta.

Both cards support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels: the K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 are present on both. The M4000 also has a higher memory clock at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, compared to the K620M's 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective. The K620M's base clock is 1029 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the M4000's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, so no comparison is possible there.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5,957. The M4000 leads by 68.8%.

Q: How does the K620M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The K620M's score of 5,957 is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5,970), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5,929).

Q: What memory capacity and type does each card use?

A: The K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. The M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The M4000 has 5,200 million transistors, while the K620M has 1,020 million transistors. Both are built on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The K620M has a 30 W TDP and uses no power connectors. The M4000 has a 120 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin connector, and has a suggested power supply of 300 W.

Q: Which card supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins decisively in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 19,118 crushes the K620M's 5,957, a 68.8% advantage. The M4000 also dominates in memory bandwidth, with 192.3 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s, which benefits large data transfers and high-resolution textures. Its 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 863.2 GFLOPS means the M4000 is the choice for GPU-accelerated tasks like rendering, finite element analysis, or machine learning inference. The M4000 also has a higher pixel rate (49.47 GPixel/s vs 8.992 GPixel/s) and texture rate (80.39 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s), making it superior for fill-rate-limited workloads. Its 8 GB memory capacity versus 2 GB allows it to hold larger models and scenes without swapping.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins in power efficiency and form factor. Its 30 W TDP is a quarter of the M4000's 120 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connector, while the M4000 needs a 1x 6-pin and a 300 W power supply. The K620M uses an MXM module (MXM-A 3.0 interface), which fits in mobile workstations, whereas the M4000 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The K620M's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the M4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-monitor desktop setups. For OpenGL and Vulkan API support, both cards are equal at version 4.6 and 1.4 respectively, so no advantage there. The K620M's percentile rank of 34 is slightly higher than the M4000's 32, but that reflects the M4000's broader test set with weaker legacy DirectX scores, not real-world superiority.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The K620M uses the GM108S chip, while the M4000 uses the GM204 chip. The K620M's architecture is Maxwell, the M4000's is Maxwell 2.0. Transistor count is 1,020 million for the K620M and 5,200 million for the M4000. Die size is 77 mm² versus 398 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 13.2M per mm² for the K620M and 13.1M per mm² for the M4000.

Memory specifications diverge completely: 2 GB DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth for the K620M, versus 8 GB GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth for the M4000. The memory clock is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the K620M, and 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the M4000. The K620M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz, while the M4000's clocks are not recorded.

Compute resources differ by orders of magnitude: 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the K620M; 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the M4000. Pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s versus 49.47 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s versus 80.39 GTexel/s. FP32 is 863.2 GFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs are also distinct: 30 W TDP with no power connectors for the K620M, versus 120 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested power supply for the M4000. The K620M is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the M4000 is a single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The K620M's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the M4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The K620M measures no recorded dimensions, while the M4000 is 241 mm long and 111 mm high. The K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), the M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The K620M was released on 2015-02-28, the M4000 on 2015-06-28. Both are end-of-life products. The K620M's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The M4000's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler and its successor is the Quadro Pascal.