GPU Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce 820A and Intel UHD Graphics 610 are both end-of-life integrated-class parts aimed at low-power laptops, but the benchmark data shows they are not interchangeable. The 820A, a 2014 Fermi-based discrete GPU, and the 610, a 2020 Comet Lake integrated solution, deliver similar raw scores yet differ meaningfully in API support, memory architecture, and feature set. The data indicates that one holds a clear edge in compute workloads while the other offers modern driver features and a faster pixel fill rate relative to its texture throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, and it is a decisive win for the NVIDIA GeForce 820A. The 820A scored 2983 points, while the Intel UHD Graphics 610 scored 2692 points. That is a delta of 10.8% in favor of NVIDIA. In practical terms, this means the 820A delivers roughly a tenth more compute throughput in OpenCL-based applications, a margin that will be visible in GPU-accelerated filters or physics simulations, though not transformative for everyday use.

Context from the nearest rivals confirms that both parts sit in the same performance tier. The 820A’s average benchmark score of 2983 puts it 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 860M (2967) and 1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750 Ti (2953). It also edges out the Quadro P600 (2923) by 2.1% and the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2913) by 2.4%. Those deltas are tiny, within noise for most workloads, but they show the 820A is not a bottom-tier part; it trades blows with much newer discrete GPUs in compute.

The Intel UHD Graphics 610, with an average score of 2752, is 1.1% behind the GeForce 820M (2784) and 1.5% behind the RTX 3060 Ti GDDR6X (2795). It is also 1.7% behind the Radeon 550 (2801). Interestingly, it is 2.3% ahead of the RTX 5070 SUPER (2690) in this specific test. The 610’s Vulkan score of 2811 is significantly higher than its OpenCL score of 2692, suggesting the architecture scales better with modern APIs. That is a notable pattern: NVIDIA’s part wins OpenCL outright, but Intel’s part shows a 4.4% improvement when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan, which hints at better driver optimization for current graphics workloads.

The head-to-head table lists only one test, so the 820A takes the sole win with a 1–0 record. However, that single result does not capture the full picture. The 610’s Vulkan performance, while not directly compared to the 820A (which has no Vulkan score in the data), indicates that in games or applications using Vulkan, the Intel part could close the gap or even overtake the NVIDIA part, depending on driver behavior.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A wins in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 2983 is 10.8% higher than Intel’s 2692, and its FP32 rating of 240.0 GFLOPS exceeds the 610’s 201.6 GFLOPS by about 19%. For any workload that relies heavily on shader math, such as OpenCL-based video encoding filters, physics calculations, or older DirectX 11 games, the 820A will deliver smoother performance. It also has a higher pixel rate (2.500 GPixel/s vs 2.100 GPixel/s), which benefits fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution UI rendering or simple 2D compositing.

The Intel UHD Graphics 610 wins in API modernity and feature support. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 820A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). That means the 610 can run title that require feature level 12_1, while the 820A will fall back to 11_0. The 610 also supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the 820A has no Vulkan support listed. For newer games or applications built on Vulkan, the 610 is the only one of the two that can even function. The 610’s texture rate of 12.60 GTexel/s is 26% higher than the 820A’s 10.00 GTexel/s, which helps in texture-heavy scenes despite the lower pixel rate.

The 610 also wins on memory flexibility. It uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as “System Dependent,” meaning it can draw on as much RAM as the system has, whereas the 820A is locked to 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 with a fixed 16.02 GB/s bus. For applications that need more than 1 GB of video memory, the 610 can allocate more, though at the cost of sharing system bandwidth. The 820A’s dedicated memory is faster in a fixed sense, but it is capped.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 10.8% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 610’s score of 2692.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 610 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Intel UHD Graphics 610 supports Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: How much dedicated memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus. The Intel UHD Graphics 610 uses system shared memory, with size, type, and bus width all listed as “System Shared.”

Q: Which part has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A has a pixel rate of 2.500 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 610’s 2.100 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A delivers 240.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel UHD Graphics 610 delivers 201.6 GFLOPS, a 19% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Which GPU has a faster texture fill rate?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 610 has a texture rate of 12.60 GTexel/s, which is 26% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce 820A’s 10.00 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measurable specification except for shading unit count and TDP. Both have 96 shading units and a 15 W TDP, but beyond that, the architectures diverge sharply.

• Process Node: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, while the Intel UHD Graphics 610 uses Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. The 820A has a transistor count of 585 million on a 116 mm² die, giving a density of 5.0M/mm². Intel does not list transistor or die size data for the 610.
• Clock Speeds: The 820A lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The 610 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1050 MHz.
• Memory: The 820A uses 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The 610 uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as “System Dependent.”
• Texture Mapping Units (TMUs): The 820A has 16 TMUs, while the 610 has 12.
• Raster Output Units (ROPs): The 820A has 8 ROPs, while the 610 has only 2.
• Bus Interface: The 820A uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 610 uses a Ring Bus.
• Display Outputs: The 820A’s outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” while the 610’s are “Motherboard Dependent.”
• API Support: The 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. The 610 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.
• Release Date: The 820A was released on March 16, 2014, while the 610 was released on April 29, 2020.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A is based on the GF117 chip using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, which dates back to 2014. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process and packs 585 million transistors into a 116 mm² die. Fermi 2.0 is an older architecture that lacks modern features like hardware Vulkan support and only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The 820A’s design is optimized for fixed-function workloads with dedicated memory, which explains its higher pixel rate (2.500 GPixel/s) despite having more ROPs (8 vs 2) and a lower texture rate (10.00 GTexel/s vs 12.60 GTexel/s).

The Intel UHD Graphics 610 is based on the Comet Lake GT1 chip using Generation 9.5 architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. It is a modern integrated graphics solution with support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The 610 uses system shared memory, which is slower in absolute bandwidth but far more flexible. Its architecture is designed for low-power efficiency and modern API compatibility, not raw compute throughput. The 610’s FP16 performance of 403.2 GFLOPS (2:1) is double its FP32 rate, indicating support for half-precision compute, which the 820A does not list. The 610 also has a higher texture rate (12.60 GTexel/s) but a much lower pixel rate (2.100 GPixel/s) due to its 2 ROPs.

The transistor density difference is stark: the 820A achieves 5.0M/mm² on 28 nm, while Intel does not disclose the 610’s density, but the 14 nm+++ process is more advanced. The 820A’s dedicated memory gives it a fixed 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, while the 610’s bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host system’s memory configuration.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the workload. If you need raw compute performance in OpenCL or older DirectX 11 applications, the NVIDIA GeForce 820A is the clear winner. Its 10.8% higher OpenCL score, 19% higher FP32 throughput, and dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory make it the better option for GPU-accelerated tasks that are not constrained by VRAM capacity. The 820A also has a higher pixel rate (2.500 vs 2.100 GPixel/s), which helps in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

If you need modern API support, the Intel UHD Graphics 610 is the only choice. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the 820A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. That means the 610 can run newer games and applications that require these APIs, while the 820A cannot. The 610 also has a 26% higher texture rate (12.60 vs 10.00 GTexel/s) and can access system memory dynamically, which is useful for workloads that exceed 1 GB of VRAM.

For users with an existing 820A, the data suggests it is still competitive for compute tasks, but its lack of Vulkan support is a dealbreaker for modern gaming. For users choosing between the two, the 610 is the more future-proof option due to API support, while the 820A is better for pure compute. Neither part is a gaming powerhouse, both sit in the 18th and 19th percentiles of all GPUs, but they serve different niches. Pick the 820A for number crunching; pick the 610 for compatibility with modern graphics stacks.