GPU Comparison

The GeForce 820A and GeForce GT 1030 are both end-of-life NVIDIA parts, but they belong to entirely different performance tiers. The data shows a decisive victory for the GT 1030, which is built on a newer architecture and uses faster memory. The 820A is an integrated-class part from 2014, while the GT 1030 is a discrete entry-level card from 2017. This comparison highlights how much GPU technology advanced in that short window.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are not close. The GT 1030 scores 8,568 points, while the 820A scores just 2,983 points. That translates to a 65.2% advantage for the GT 1030, meaning it delivers nearly three times the compute performance in this test. The 820A is not merely slower; it is in a different class entirely.

Looking at the bigger picture, the GT 1030’s average benchmark score across all tests is 2,662, while the 820A’s average is 2,983. This is an unusual situation: the 820A has a higher average score despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test by a wide margin. The reason is that the 820A has only one benchmark result in its data set, whereas the GT 1030 has ten, including several DirectX and compute tests that pull its average down. The OpenCL test is the only apples-to-apples comparison available, and it favors the GT 1030 overwhelmingly.

In practical terms, the OpenCL score difference means the GT 1030 will handle compute workloads, OpenCL-accelerated applications, and modern game rendering far more smoothly. The 820A’s score places it near the bottom of the performance hierarchy. Its percentile rank of 19 versus the GT 1030’s 17 is misleading because the percentile measures all GPUs, not just these two; the 820A’s single strong OpenCL result gives it a slightly higher percentile, but its real-world capability is far lower.

Architecture Differences

The 820A is based on the GF117 chip, using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 585 million transistors into a 116 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.0M per mm². The GT 1030 uses the GP108 chip with the Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 1,800 million transistors in a much smaller 74 mm² die, achieving a density of 24.3M per mm². This is a generational leap in manufacturing efficiency.

The compute resources differ starkly. The 820A has 96 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The GT 1030 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is four times the shader count and double the TMUs and ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: the 820A manages 2.500 GPixel/s, while the GT 1030 hits 23.49 GPixel/s. Similarly, texture rate jumps from 10.00 GTexel/s to 35.23 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 240.0 GFLOPS versus 1,127.4 GFLOPS, a 4.7x difference.

Memory is another major divider. The 820A uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 1030 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 64-bit bus, but bandwidth triples to 48.06 GB/s. Memory clocks are 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the 820A versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the GT 1030. The GT 1030 also has active clocks: a base of 1228 MHz and a boost of 1468 MHz, while the 820A has no listed base or boost clock.

Feature support diverges as well. The 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The GT 1030 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GT 1030 also lists a FP16 rate of 17.62 GFLOPS (1:64), which the 820A does not provide.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The GT 1030 is far faster, scoring 8,568 versus 2,983 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 65.2% lead.

Q: Why does the 820A have a higher average benchmark score than the GT 1030?

A: The 820A’s average of 2,983 comes from a single OpenCL result, while the GT 1030’s average of 2,662 is pulled down by several low DirectX and compute scores. The only direct comparison, OpenCL, favors the GT 1030.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GT 1030 has 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5, while the 820A has 16.02 GB/s using DDR3. That is a threefold difference on the same 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the 820A support Vulkan?

A: No. The 820A lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support. The GT 1030 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the transistor counts?

A: The 820A has 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, while the GT 1030 has 1,800 million on a 74 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GT 1030 has 384 shading units, which is four times the 820A’s 96.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 28 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm (Samsung)
• Transistors: 585 million vs 1,800 million
• Die Size: 116 mm² vs 74 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.0M / mm² vs 24.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: None listed vs 1228 MHz
• Boost Clock: None listed vs 1468 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) vs 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1024 MB vs 2 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bandwidth: 16.02 GB/s vs 48.06 GB/s
• Shading Units: 96 vs 384
• TMUs: 16 vs 24
• ROPs: 8 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 2.500 GPixel/s vs 23.49 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 10.00 GTexel/s vs 35.23 GTexel/s
• FP32: 240.0 GFLOPS vs 1,127.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 17.62 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 15 W vs 30 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: None vs 200 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x4
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: None vs 1.4
• Dimensions: None listed vs 145 mm x 69 mm x 18 mm
• Release Date: 2014-03-16 vs 2017-05-16
• Predecessor: GeForce 700A vs GeForce 900
• Successor: GeForce 900A vs GeForce 20
• Launch MSRP: None vs 79 USD

Where Each One Wins

The GT 1030 wins every meaningful category. It is faster in compute, has more memory, faster memory, more shading units, higher pixel and texture rates, and supports newer APIs including Vulkan. Its single-slot design with DVI and HDMI outputs makes it suitable for a desktop system with a PCIe slot. The 30 W TDP and 200 W suggested PSU mean it can run in nearly any desktop with a standard power supply. It also has a defined physical footprint, measuring 145 mm by 69 mm by 18 mm, which makes it easy to plan for case compatibility.

The 820A has only one advantage: lower power consumption at 15 W, and it is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it requires no separate card slot. It is designed for portable devices, as indicated by its display outputs being "Portable Device Dependent." This makes it suitable for laptops or compact systems where a discrete card cannot be installed. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is older but still functional. The 820A also has a higher average benchmark score than the GT 1030, but that is an artifact of having fewer data points.

For gaming, the GT 1030 is the only viable option. The 820A’s 240.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth will struggle with any modern DirectX 12 title, especially since it only supports the 11_0 feature level. The GT 1030’s 1,127.4 GFLOPS and 48.06 GB/s bandwidth, combined with DirectX 12_1 support, make it a capable entry-level card for 1080p gaming at low settings.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The GT 1030 is the superior GPU in every performance metric that matters. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 65.2% higher than the 820A’s. It has four times the shading units, double the ROPs, and three times the memory bandwidth. It supports Vulkan and a higher DirectX feature level. It has a defined boost clock, a larger memory pool, and a physical form factor that fits standard desktop cases.

The 820A should only be considered for systems where a discrete card is impossible, such as a portable device with an IGP. It uses less power at 15 W, but its performance is a fraction of the GT 1030’s. In any scenario where a PCIe slot is available, the GT 1030 is the clear choice. It is end-of-life, but its specifications remain adequate for basic gaming and compute tasks. The 820A is also end-of-life and was never a strong performer even in its era.

For a builder choosing between these two, the GT 1030 wins on raw performance, memory, API support, and usability. The 820A wins only on power efficiency and its IGP form factor. There is no benchmark result where the 820A beats the GT 1030. The verdict is simple: pick the GT 1030 unless you are constrained to an integrated solution.