NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA Quadro K620M represent two distinct generations of professional mobile graphics, separated by architecture, process node, and intended workload. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the K620M’s lower power envelope and legacy compatibility still define its niche. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications for both cards.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the clear winner in every measured category, based on the sole head-to-head benchmark available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P2000 scores 20,125 points against the K620M’s 5,957 points, a delta of 237.8%. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. The P2000’s advantage stems from its Pascal architecture, 16 nm process, and significantly higher shader count. With 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs, the P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 59.20 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 94.72 GTexel/s texture rate. These figures translate directly to faster viewport manipulation, smoother CAD model rotation, and quicker rendering of complex scenes.

The K620M, by contrast, is built on the older Maxwell architecture using a 28 nm process. It has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, yielding 863.2 GFLOPS FP32, 8.992 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 17.98 GTexel/s texture rate. Its single benchmark score of 5,957 places it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the P2000 sits in the 35th percentile. Despite the P2000’s massive lead in raw compute, its percentile ranking is only one point higher, indicating that both cards sit near the lower-middle range of the overall GPU landscape. The P2000’s wins are absolute, but neither card is a high-end performer by modern standards.

Where the K620M could be considered a “win” is in power consumption and physical design. The K620M has a TDP of 30 W and uses an MXM module form factor, making it suitable for ultra-thin or legacy mobile workstations where power and space are constrained. The P2000 draws 75 W and is a single-slot card with no power connectors, designed for larger chassis. If the requirement is a drop-in replacement for an older MXM-based laptop with a 30 W thermal budget, the K620M is the only viable choice. However, in every performance benchmark, the P2000 wins outright.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K620M by a factor of 3.38 in the only shared benchmark. For any professional workload involving 3D rendering, GPU-accelerated compute, or high-resolution texture work, the P2000 is the superior choice. Its 5 GB GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus provides 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the K620M’s 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with only 16.02 GB/s. This eightfold bandwidth advantage alone justifies the P2000 for memory-intensive tasks like large point clouds or multi-layered compositing.

The K620M, however, retains relevance in specific legacy scenarios. Its 30 W TDP and MXM-A form factor mean it can fit into older mobile workstations that have no support for the P2000’s PCIe 3.0 x16 slot requirement. The K620M also supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the P2000’s API support for OpenGL and Vulkan, though the P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) which is a higher feature level. If a user is maintaining a fleet of aging laptops and only needs basic 2D acceleration or light 3D preview, the K620M is sufficient. But for new purchases or upgrades where performance matters, the P2000 is the only rational choice.

The average benchmark scores confirm the P2000’s positioning. Its average score is 6,049, while the K620M’s is 5,957. The P2000’s nearest rivals include the GeForce MX230 (average score 6,077, delta -0.5%) and RTX A400 (6,078, delta -0.5%), while the K620M sits alongside the Radeon HD 8730M (5,955, delta 0%) and Quadro K4000 (5,982, delta -0.4%). The P2000 is comfortably within the midrange, while the K620M is at the very bottom of that same tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The P2000 scores 20,125, and the K620M scores 5,957. The delta is 237.8%, meaning the P2000 is nearly 3.4 times faster. This is an enormous gap, far exceeding what one would expect from a simple generational update. To put it in perspective, the P2000’s score is more than triple the K620M’s, and the difference is larger than the K620M’s entire score subtracted from the P2000’s score.

Broader benchmark data reinforces this. The P2000 has nine recorded benchmarks, with a range from 28 (Passmark DirectX 12) to 23,566 (Geekbench Vulkan). Its Passmark G3D score is 6,956, and its GPU compute score is 2,933. The K620M has only one recorded benchmark, so there is no way to compare DirectX or Vulkan performance directly. However, the P2000’s Vulkan score of 23,566 and OpenCL score of 20,125 indicate strong compute and graphics API performance. The K620M’s single OpenCL score of 5,957 is its only data point, and it suggests that any compute workload will be severely limited.

The P2000’s pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s and texture rate of 94.72 GTexel/s are 6.6 times and 5.3 times higher than the K620M’s respective 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. These fill rates are critical for antialiasing, shadow mapping, and texture filtering in professional applications. The P2000 also has access to 5 GB of VRAM, which is 2.5 times the K620M’s 2 GB, a crucial margin for modern datasets. In every measurable aspect—compute, fill rate, memory bandwidth, and capacity—the P2000 dominates.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6,049, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M has an average score of 5,957.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The P2000 scores 20,125, and the K620M scores 5,957, giving the P2000 a 237.8% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. For DirectX, the P2000 supports version 12 (12_1), while the K620M supports version 12 (11_0), a lower feature level.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The P2000 has 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth from 5 GB GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus. The K620M has 16.02 GB/s from 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, and the K620M has a TDP of 30 W.

Q: Which card is better for a legacy MXM laptop?

A: The K620M uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. For an MXM slot, only the K620M is compatible.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two cards is stark and explains the performance delta. The P2000 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture using a 16 nm TSMC process, with a transistor count of 4,400 million on a 200 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 22.0 million per mm². The K620M uses the older Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, a density of 13.2 million per mm². The P2000’s newer process allows for more transistors in a larger area, enabling higher clock speeds and more compute units.

The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, versus the K620M’s 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 2.67x increase in shader count directly drives the FP32 performance difference: 3.031 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. The P2000 also supports FP16 compute at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the K620M has no FP16 capability listed. The P2000’s clock speeds are higher as well, with a base of 1076 MHz and boost of 1480 MHz, compared to the K620M’s 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit interface, running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), providing 140.2 GB/s. The K620M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit interface, running at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), providing only 16.02 GB/s. This 8.75x bandwidth difference is critical for texture streaming and large frame buffers. The P2000’s memory clock is also significantly higher, which compounds the bandwidth advantage.

Physically, the P2000 is a 196 mm long, 111 mm tall single-slot card requiring no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The K620M is an MXM module with dimensions not listed, consuming only 30 W and requiring no external power. The P2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the K620M’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop design. The P2000’s release date is February 2017, while the K620M is from February 2015. Both are end-of-life, with the P2000 succeeding the Quadro Maxwell series and the K620M succeeding the Quadro Fermi-M series. In summary, the P2000 is a modern, high-bandwidth compute device, while the K620M is a legacy, low-power mobile part with limited throughput.