NVIDIA Quadro K620M vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA T600 is the clear winner in this comparison, and the data leaves no room for ambiguity. In the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, the T600 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 27,875 against the Quadro K620M's 5,957, a performance gap of 367.9%. This is not a close contest; it is a generational leap.

The T600 belongs to a different performance class entirely. Its average benchmark score of 7,035 places it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the K620M's average of 5,957 lands in the 34th percentile. The T600 sits alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 in the database, trailing it by just 1.7%, and runs ahead of the GeForce GTX 680M by 0.2%. The K620M, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (0% delta) and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (0.5% ahead of that chip).

Who should pick the T600? Anyone who needs modern compute performance in a professional workstation card. The data shows a 4 GB GDDR6 memory pool, a 128-bit bus, and 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K620M offers only 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s. For tasks that scale with memory bandwidth, the T600 is in a different league.

Who should pick the K620M? Only those constrained by its specific physical form factor. The K620M is an MXM module, designed for portable devices where the T600's single-slot PCIe card cannot fit. If a system requires an MXM-A (3.0) interface, the K620M is the only option here. But from a pure performance standpoint, the K620M is obsolete relative to the T600.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The T600 uses the TU117 chip built on Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, for a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The K620M uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm².

The T600's compute resources dwarf the K620M. The T600 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The K620M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In raw throughput, the T600 delivers 1.709 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 3.418 TFLOPS of FP16 (via a 2:1 ratio). The K620M manages only 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and has no FP16 capability listed. Pixel fill rate is 42.72 GPixel/s for the T600 versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the K620M. Texture fill rate is 53.40 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. But the T600's Turing architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620M's Maxwell chip only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The T600 also has a higher boost clock at 1335 MHz versus 1124 MHz for the K620M, though the K620M has a higher base clock at 1029 MHz versus 735 MHz. The memory situation is stark: GDDR6 at 10 Gbps effective for the T600, DDR3 at 2 Gbps for the K620M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The T600 scores 27,875, and the K620M scores 5,957. That is a delta of 367.9% in favor of the T600. This single data point tells the story of the entire comparison: the T600 is nearly four times faster in this compute workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the T600, the results reinforce its strength. In Passmark G3D, it scores 6,479. In Passmark GPU Compute, it scores 2,402. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 25,580. The K620M has no recorded scores for these tests in the database, so no direct comparison is possible. But the OpenCL result alone is decisive.

The T600's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce GTX 970, which averages 7,157 (the T600 trails by 1.7%), and the GeForce GTX 680M, which averages 7,023 (the T600 leads by 0.2%). The K620M's nearest rivals are far weaker: the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5,955 (0% delta), the Radeon HD 8750M at 5,970 (the K620M trails by 0.2%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982 (trailing by 0.4%). The K620M leads the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 0.5%.

In essence, the T600 competes with desktop-class GPUs from a few generations back. The K620M competes with entry-level integrated graphics. The gap in average benchmark score is 7,035 versus 5,957, an 18% advantage for the T600. But the head-to-head OpenCL result shows a 367.9% advantage, suggesting the average score understates the real-world compute difference.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The T600 uses a 12 nm process; the K620M uses 28 nm. Transistor count is 4,700 million versus 1,020 million. Die size is 200 mm² versus 77 mm². The T600 has a base clock of 735 MHz and a boost of 1335 MHz; the K620M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost.

Memory is the most dramatic split. The T600 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 10 Gbps effective. The K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s at 2 Gbps effective. That is a 10x bandwidth advantage for the T600.

Compute resources differ sharply: 640 shading units versus 384, 40 TMUs versus 16, 32 ROPs versus 8. The T600's FP32 throughput is 1.709 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. The T600 supports FP16 at 3.418 TFLOPS; the K620M lists no FP16 capability.

Power draw is modest for both, with the T600 rated at 40 W and the K620M at 30 W. The T600 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The K620M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The T600 uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the K620M uses MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs differ as well: the T600 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K620M's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

The T600 was released in April 2021; the K620M in February 2015. Both are end-of-life products. The T600's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The K620M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 5,957 for the Quadro K620M. That is a 367.9% advantage for the T600.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The T600 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K620M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The T600's bandwidth is exactly 10 times higher.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. However, the T600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K620M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The T600 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with no power connectors and a suggested 200 W PSU. The K620M is an MXM module using the MXM-A (3.0) interface, designed for portable devices.

Q: How close is the T600 to the GeForce GTX 970 in the database?

A: The T600's average benchmark score is 7,035, while the GeForce GTX 970 averages 7,157. The T600 trails by 1.7%, making them near peers in overall performance.

Q: Does the K620M have any FP16 compute capability?

A: No. The database lists no FP16 score for the K620M. The T600 delivers 3.418 TFLOPS of FP16 performance via a 2:1 ratio, in addition to its 1.709 TFLOPS of FP32.