Quadro M620 vs Quadro K4000
Quadro M620
Popular choices:
Quadro K4000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K4000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M620 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K4000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro M620 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M620 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro M620 holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $100), it costs 60% less, resulting in a 153.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M620 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+153.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro M620 and Quadro K4000
Quadro M620
The Quadro M620 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 11 2017. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 756 MHz to 977 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,758 points.
Quadro K4000
The Quadro K4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 810 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,719 points. Launch price was $1,269.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M620 scores 2,758 and the Quadro K4000 reaches 2,719 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M620 is built on Maxwell while the Quadro K4000 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 512 (Quadro M620) vs 768 (Quadro K4000). Raw compute: 1 TFLOPS (Quadro M620) vs 1.244 TFLOPS (Quadro K4000).
| Feature | Quadro M620 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,758+1% | 2,719 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 | 768+50% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1 TFLOPS | 1.244 TFLOPS+24% |
| ROPs | 16 | 24+50% |
| TMUs | 32 | 64+100% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB+300% | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+426% | 0.38 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M620 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro M620 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB. The Quadro K4000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M620) vs 0.38 MB (Quadro K4000) — the Quadro M620 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M620 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 3 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+426% | 0.38 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M620 draws 30W versus the Quadro K4000's 80W — a 90.9% difference. The Quadro M620 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M620) vs 350W (Quadro K4000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro M620 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-63% | 80W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 91.9+170% | 34.0 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M620 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the Quadro K4000 launched at $1269 and now averages $100. The Quadro M620 costs 60% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 69.0 (Quadro M620) vs 27.2 (Quadro K4000) — the Quadro M620 offers 153.7% better value. The Quadro M620 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro M620 | Quadro K4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $1269 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-60% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 69.0+154% | 27.2 |
| Codename | GM107 | GK106 |
| Release | January 11 2017 | March 1 2013 |
| Ranking | #606 | #613 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M620 and Quadro K4000
