Quadro K620 vs Quadro K4100M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4100M with Quadro K620, including specs and performance data.

K4100M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.16
+23.7%

K4100M outperforms K620 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking547598
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.532.71
Power efficiency4.948.88
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGK104GM107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)22 July 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 $189.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K620 has 411% better value for money than K4100M.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1152384
Core clock speed706 MHz1058 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1124 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt41 Watt
Texture fill rate67.7826.98
Floating-point processing power1.627 TFLOPS0.8632 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs9624

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5128 Bit
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/sUp to 29 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displaysno data4
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro++
Mosaic++
nView Display Management+no data
nView Desktop Managementno data+
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA+5.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

K4100M 7.16
+23.7%
Quadro K620 5.79

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

K4100M 2755
+23.7%
Quadro K620 2227

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

K4100M 8844
+32.2%
Quadro K620 6689

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

K4100M 7058
+19%
Quadro K620 5931

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

K4100M 6821
+2.5%
Quadro K620 6653

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

K4100M 26
+36.8%
Quadro K620 19

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD48
+37.1%
35−40
−37.1%
4K13
+30%
10−12
−30%

Cost per frame, $

1080p31.23
−476%
5.43
+476%
4K115.31
−507%
18.99
+507%
  • Quadro K620 has 476% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Quadro K620 has 507% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Elden Ring 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+38.1%
21−24
−38.1%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%
Valorant 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Dota 2 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Elden Ring 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+33.3%
24−27
−33.3%
Fortnite 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+38.1%
21−24
−38.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Valorant 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
World of Tanks 110−120
+29.4%
85−90
−29.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Dota 2 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+33.3%
24−27
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+38.1%
21−24
−38.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+28.9%
45−50
−28.9%
Valorant 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Elden Ring 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
World of Tanks 50−55
+30%
40−45
−30%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Valorant 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Elden Ring 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Fortnite 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

This is how K4100M and Quadro K620 compete in popular games:

  • K4100M is 37% faster in 1080p
  • K4100M is 30% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.16 5.79
Recency 23 July 2013 22 July 2014
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 41 Watt

K4100M has a 23.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro K620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and 143.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4100M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro K620 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
Quadro K4100M
NVIDIA Quadro K620
Quadro K620

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 91 vote

Rate Quadro K4100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 642 votes

Rate Quadro K620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.