NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The two mobile workstation GPUs are nearly identical in hardware, but the NVIDIA Quadro M500M edges out the older NVIDIA Quadro K620M in the only direct benchmark available, though the difference is marginal. The K620M is an end-of-life Maxwell part from the Kepler-M generation, while the M500M is its direct successor in the Maxwell-M line, sharing the same chip, process, and core configuration.

The Verdict — who should pick which, strictly from the data

The data points to a simple conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M500M is the better pick for anyone choosing between these two, but the advantage is so small that it is almost negligible in practice. In the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M500M scores 5986 against the K620M’s 5957, a delta of -0.5% from the K620M’s perspective. That translates to a 0.5% lead for the M500M — a difference that would be imperceptible in any real-world workload.

The K620M’s average benchmark score is 5957, identical to its single OpenCL result, placing it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The M500M’s average score, however, is 5604, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 5986 because its benchmark profile also includes a Vulkan test where it scores 5222. This pulls its average down and puts it at the 32nd percentile. So while the M500M wins the head-to-head OpenCL comparison, its overall average is lower, which complicates the picture slightly.

The K620M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, -0.4% delta), meaning it sits squarely in a cluster of similarly performing parts. The M500M’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, 1.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, 1.7% delta), showing it outperforms those parts by more meaningful margins. For a buyer who requires the latest generation and the slight OpenCL edge, the M500M is the choice; for anyone who already owns a K620M, upgrading would yield essentially no measurable benefit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, giving the M500M a 0.5% lead.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both the K620M and M500M feature 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units, along with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two cards?

A: The base and boost clocks are identical at 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz respectively, but the memory clock differs: the K620M runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) while the M500M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The K620M has higher memory bandwidth at 16.02 GB/s compared to the M500M’s 14.40 GB/s, despite the M500M being the newer part.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU against all GPUs?

A: The K620M ranks at the 34th percentile, while the M500M ranks at the 32nd percentile, indicating the K620M sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

Q: Do the two GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with no differences in API support.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same NVIDIA Maxwell architecture, using the identical GM108S chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is exactly the same at 1,020 million, and the die size is 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². There are no differences in the underlying silicon — this is the same physical GPU.

The generation labels differ, which reflects their market positioning rather than hardware changes. The K620M is listed under the "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M)" generation, while the M500M is under "Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)" generation. This naming indicates the K620M is a transitional product that bridges the Kepler and Maxwell eras, whereas the M500M is firmly a Maxwell-generation part. The production status confirms this: the K620M is end-of-life, and the M500M is also end-of-life, but the M500M is the successor in the product line.

Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their Maxwell architecture and mobile workstation positioning. The pixel rate and texture rate are identical at 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s respectively, and FP32 compute is the same at 863.2 GFLOPS. There are no FP16 capabilities listed for either card. The power profile is also identical at 30 W TDP, with no power connectors required since they are MXM modules.

Specification Differences

The core specifications are overwhelmingly similar, but there are a few fields where the two differ. The most significant difference is the memory clock: the K620M runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective speed, while the M500M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed. This directly impacts memory bandwidth, where the K620M achieves 16.02 GB/s versus the M500M’s 14.40 GB/s — a 10% advantage for the older card.

The release dates differ, with the K620M launching on 2015-02-28 and the M500M launching on 2016-04-26, placing the M500M roughly 14 months later in the market. The predecessor and successor fields also differ: the K620M’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M, while the M500M’s predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M.

The benchmark profiles differ as well. The K620M has only one benchmark result (Geekbench OpenCL at 5957), while the M500M has two results (Geekbench OpenCL at 5986 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5222). This explains the discrepancy in average benchmark scores: the K620M’s average is 5957, while the M500M’s average is 5604 because the Vulkan score drags it down. All other fields — memory size, type, bus width, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, clocks, TDP, slot width, bus interface, display outputs, and APIs — are identical.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is extremely close. The M500M scores 5986, while the K620M scores 5957, giving the M500M a win with a delta of -0.5% (interpreted as the K620M being 0.5% behind). This is a margin of just 29 points out of nearly 6000, which is well within run-to-run variance for any benchmark.

This near-tie is unsurprising given the hardware. Both GPUs share the exact same chip, clock speeds, core counts, and FP32 compute. The only hardware difference is the memory clock, where the K620M actually has the advantage (1001 MHz vs 900 MHz), yet the M500M still manages to score slightly higher in OpenCL. This suggests the M500M may benefit from driver optimizations or firmware improvements introduced after its later release, though the data does not specify this.

The M500M also has a Vulkan benchmark result of 5222, but the K620M has no corresponding Vulkan score in the data, so a direct Vulkan comparison is not possible. The M500M’s Vulkan score is notably lower than its OpenCL score (5222 vs 5986), which is typical for mobile GPUs where Vulkan drivers may be less mature. Without a K620M Vulkan score, no conclusion can be drawn about which card handles Vulkan better.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the K620M’s OpenCL score of 5957 places it just above the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta) and just below the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2% delta). The M500M’s OpenCL score of 5986 puts it ahead of the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, 1.2% delta) by a more substantial margin, and ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 1.9% delta) as well. This indicates the M500M’s single benchmark win is more meaningful when compared against its own rival set than the K620M’s is against its rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The K620M wins in memory bandwidth, a direct result of its faster memory clock. With 16.02 GB/s versus the M500M’s 14.40 GB/s, the K620M has a 10% bandwidth advantage. This could matter for workloads that are memory-bound, such as large texture reads or data-intensive compute tasks, though the overall performance impact is likely small given the narrow bus width of 64 bits and the modest memory size of 2 GB.

The M500M wins in the only direct benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 5986 against 5957. It also has the advantage of being a newer generation part (Maxwell-M vs Kepler-M), which may translate to better driver support over time, though both are now end-of-life. The M500M also has a verified Vulkan score of 5222, indicating it has been tested for Vulkan workloads, whereas the K620M has no Vulkan result in the data.

For a use-case split, the K620M would be the pick for memory-sensitive workloads where its higher bandwidth could provide a slight edge, such as tasks involving frequent data transfers. The M500M would be the pick for general-purpose OpenCL compute and any Vulkan-based applications, based on its benchmark wins and newer generation status. However, the performance delta between the two is so small — 0.5% in OpenCL — that either card would be functionally equivalent for most mobile workstation tasks. The decision ultimately comes down to generation preference rather than measurable performance differences.