NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two mobile workstation GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22920, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957. That is a delta of 284.8%, meaning the M5000M delivers nearly four times the OpenCL compute performance of the K620M. In practical terms, any workload that offloads parallel computation to the GPU will see a massive uplift on the M5000M.

Looking at the broader database context, the M5000M's average benchmark score of 6481 places it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 (a 0.1% advantage for the M5000M), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M at 6493 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6513 (0.5% behind). These deltas are tiny, indicating that the M5000M sits in a tightly packed performance cluster where small score differences separate adjacent entries. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6554 is 1.1% ahead, which is still within noise for most workloads.

The K620M's average benchmark score is 5957, placing it in the 34th percentile. Its nearest rivals are similarly close: the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (a 0% difference), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970 (0.2% behind the K620M), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.4% behind). The Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 trails by 0.5%. This shows the K620M is competitive with its immediate peers, but those peers sit in a lower performance tier than the M5000M's competitors.

The gap between the two Quadros is not subtle. In the single head-to-head test available, the M5000M wins outright with a 284.8% margin. No benchmark in the pack shows the K620M winning any test against the M5000M. The wins tally is 1 for the M5000M and 0 for the K620M.

Where Each One Wins

The M5000M wins in every measurable category where both have data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22920 versus 5957 is the only direct comparison, but the specification differences reinforce the same story. The M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 4x difference in shading units and TMUs, and an 8x difference in ROPs. Pixel rate tells the same tale: 67.26 GPixel/s for the M5000M versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the K620M. Texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.229 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS.

For use cases, the M5000M is the clear choice for GPU-accelerated compute, OpenCL workloads, high-resolution texture handling, and any task that pushes large vertex or pixel counts. The K620M, with its lower 30 W TDP versus 100 W, is better suited for thermally constrained chassis where power draw is the primary concern. It also uses a smaller MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the M5000M uses MXM-B (3.0), which may matter for physical compatibility in specific laptops.

The K620M does have a higher base clock at 1029 MHz versus 962 MHz, and a higher boost clock at 1124 MHz versus 1051 MHz. In clock-for-clock terms, the K620M runs faster, but the M5000M's massive resource advantage overwhelms that frequency edge. The K620M also has a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm², a negligible difference. The K620M's memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the M5000M's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). That faster memory, combined with a 256-bit bus versus 64-bit, gives the M5000M a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s, a 10x advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22920 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957. The M5000M leads by 284.8%.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The M5000M's average score of 6481 is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6476) and 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493). The K620M's average score of 5957 is 0% different from the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955) and 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M5000M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The K620M has 16.02 GB/s with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The M5000M offers roughly ten times the bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The M5000M has 1536 shading units. The K620M has 384. The M5000M also has 96 TMUs versus 16, and 64 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The M5000M is rated at 100 W TDP. The K620M is rated at 30 W TDP. The K620M draws significantly less power, which may be relevant for battery life or cooling constraints in thin laptops.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every core specification. The M5000M uses the GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The K620M uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with nearly identical transistor densities (13.1M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm²).

Memory is a major split. The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The M5000M's effective memory clock is 5 Gbps, while the K620M's is 2 Gbps.

Compute resources differ by factors of four to eight. The M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M5000M's pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.229 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds favor the K620M. Its base clock is 1029 MHz and boost is 1124 MHz. The M5000M runs at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. TDP favors the K620M at 30 W versus 100 W. The bus interface differs: MXM-B (3.0) for the M5000M, MXM-A (3.0) for the K620M. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, and both have display outputs that are portable device dependent.

DirectX support differs: the M5000M supports 12 (12_1), the K620M supports 12 (11_0). OpenGL and Vulkan are identical at 4.6 and 1.4 respectively. Release dates differ: the M5000M launched on 2015-08-17, the K620M on 2015-02-28. Both are end-of-life. The M5000M's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and successor is Quadro Pascal-M. The K620M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

Architecture Differences

The M5000M is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip. The K620M is built on the original Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. Despite both being Maxwell family, they are different revisions with different feature sets. The M5000M's generation is listed as "Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)", while the K620M's generation is "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)". This naming reflects NVIDIA's product tiering: the M5000M sits in the higher-end M-class lineup, while the K620M sits in the lower K-class lineup.

The transistor count difference is stark: 5,200 million versus 1,020 million. That is a 5.1x difference in transistor budget. The die size difference is even larger proportionally: 398 mm² versus 77 mm². The M5000M packs roughly five times the silicon area into the same 28 nm process. This explains the resource gap in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and memory controllers.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The M5000M uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit interface, while the K620M uses DDR3 with a 64-bit interface. The M5000M's memory subsystem is designed for high-bandwidth workloads like large textures and compute buffers. The K620M's narrower bus and slower memory type limit its ability to feed even its modest compute resources.

DirectX feature level is another architectural split. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which includes features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views. The K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which lacks those higher-tier features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so modern cross-platform APIs are available on both.

The TDP difference of 100 W versus 30 W reflects the architectural scale. The M5000M's larger die and faster memory require substantially more power. The K620M's smaller chip and slower memory allow it to operate at a fraction of the power draw. Both use MXM modules with no external power connectors, meaning the host laptop must supply power through the MXM slot.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K620M by a wide margin in every recorded benchmark and specification that matters for GPU compute. The 284.8% OpenCL advantage is not incremental; it is a generational leap in capability. The M5000M's 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, 1536 shading units, and 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 performance make it suitable for demanding professional workloads like GPU rendering, simulation, and machine learning inference. The K620M, with 2 GB of DDR3, 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, 384 shading units, and 863.2 GFLOPS, is a much more limited part.

Choose the M5000M if your laptop can handle 100 W of thermal load and you need compute performance. It sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, which is modest in the broader GPU landscape, but it is competitive with the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile and only slightly behind the GeForce GTX 670M in average score. The K620M, at the 34th percentile, is a step down in overall standing and sits alongside older parts like the Radeon HD 8730M and Quadro K4000.

Choose the K620M only if power draw is the binding constraint. Its 30 W TDP makes it viable in thinner chassis, and its higher clock speeds (1029 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost) show it is not a slouch in clock-for-clock terms. But the resource deficit is too large. The K620M's 2 GB memory and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth will bottleneck even modest texture workloads, and its DirectX 12 (11_0) support lacks the feature level of the M5000M's 12_1.

For any professional user who needs to run GPU-accelerated tasks on a mobile workstation, the M5000M is the obvious pick from the recorded data. The K620M is a legacy part that was eclipsed by its own manufacturer's higher-tier offering. The benchmark numbers, the memory subsystem, and the compute resources all point the same direction. The M5000M wins 1 benchmark, loses 0, and leads by 284.8% in the only head-to-head test available. That is not a close contest; it is a hierarchy.