GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A is the clear winner in this matchup, outperforming the GeForce GT 440 by 12.8% in the sole benchmark test available. The data shows the 820A scores 2983 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GT 440 manages only 2645. For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the 820A is the better pick on raw performance, but the decision is not that simple. The 820A is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, designed for portable devices, while the GT 440 is a single-slot, 65 W desktop card with a 250 W suggested PSU. If you need a drop-in desktop GPU with standard display outputs, the GT 440 is the only one that fits; if you are working with a low-power embedded or mobile platform, the 820A is the superior performer per watt. Neither card is competitive by modern standards, the 820A sits at the 19th percentile of all GPUs, and the GT 440 sits at the 17th, but between the two, the 820A delivers more compute for dramatically less power.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same underlying Fermi design lineage, but they are not identical. The 820A is built on the GF117 chip using the "Fermi 2.0" architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GT 440 uses the older GF108 chip with the original "Fermi" architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is significant: the 28 nm node allows the 820A to achieve the same transistor count and die size as the GT 440, 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, while operating at a fraction of the power. Both chips have identical transistor density at 5.0M / mm², which indicates the architectural core is essentially the same, just shrunk.

The memory subsystems differ notably. The 820A has a 64-bit memory bus with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory running at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s. The GT 440 has a 128-bit bus with the same 1024 MB of DDR3, but at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), producing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, 80% more than the 820A. This is a major architectural difference that influences where each card excels. The 820A compensates with a higher effective memory clock, but the narrower bus limits its data throughput.

The compute resources are nearly identical in count: both have 96 shading units and 16 texture mapping units. The 820A has 8 ROPs, while the GT 440 has 4. However, the GT 440's higher clock rates give it a different performance profile. The 820A achieves a pixel rate of 2.500 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 10.00 GTexel/s, while the GT 440 posts 3.240 GPixel/s and 12.96 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the GT 440 leads with 311.0 GFLOPS versus the 820A's 240.0 GFLOPS. The 820A's advantage in the benchmark comes despite lower theoretical peak rates, which suggests its newer architecture and memory efficiency play a role.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The 820A's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its IGP nature, while the GT 440 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA. The GT 440 is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, though it draws power from the slot with no additional connectors. The 820A needs no power connectors and is classified as an IGP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.8% higher than the GT 440's score of 2645. The 820A wins the only head-to-head test available.

Q: Why does the GT 440 have higher theoretical compute but lose the benchmark?

A: The GT 440 has higher peak FP32 performance (311.0 GFLOPS vs 240.0 GFLOPS) and more memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s), but the 820A still outscores it. This indicates the 820A's 28 nm Fermi 2.0 architecture extracts more real-world efficiency from its resources than the older 40 nm Fermi design in the GT 440.

Q: Can I use the GT 440 in a modern desktop?

A: Yes, the GT 440 is a single-slot card with standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.3a, VGA) and a 145 mm length. It uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. It is end-of-life, but it is a conventional desktop card.

Q: Can I use the 820A in a desktop?

A: No, the 820A is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. It is designed for laptops or embedded systems, not as a standalone desktop card.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 820A is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 860M (2967), 1% ahead of the GTX 750 Ti (2953), 2.1% ahead of the Quadro P600 (2923), and 2.4% ahead of the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2913). The GT 440 is 0.5% behind the Intel Arc Pro B50 (2660), 0.6% behind the GT 1030 (2662), 0.7% behind the Quadro K1100M (2664), and 1.5% ahead of the GT 720M (2605).

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The 820A has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP, while the GT 440 has a 65 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The 820A uses no power connectors; the GT 440 also uses no power connectors but draws more from the slot.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 820A | NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 2.500 GPixel/s | 3.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 10.00 GTexel/s | 12.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 240.0 GFLOPS | 311.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x VGA |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-03-16 | 2011-01-31 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 79 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 scores 2645. That is a 12.8% advantage for the 820A, which is a substantial margin in a single compute test. The 820A's win is notable because the GT 440 has clear theoretical advantages: it offers 29.6% more FP32 throughput (311.0 GFLOPS vs 240.0 GFLOPS), 79.8% more memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s), and higher pixel and texture rates (3.240 GPixel/s vs 2.500 GPixel/s, and 12.96 GTexel/s vs 10.00 GTexel/s, respectively). Yet the 820A still wins by nearly 13 points in the actual benchmark.

The explanation lies in the architectural efficiency of the 28 nm Fermi 2.0 design. The 820A's 8 ROPs versus the GT 440's 4 ROPs may help in certain compute workloads, and the newer process node likely allows better clock behavior under sustained load. The GT 440's 128-bit bus gives it a bandwidth advantage, but the 820A's higher effective memory clock (2 Gbps vs 1800 Mbps) partially compensates. The benchmark result suggests that raw peak specs are not the whole story; the 820A's modernized implementation delivers better real-world OpenCL performance.

In the context of their respective rival sets, the 820A's score of 2983 places it just barely ahead of much more powerful-sounding GPUs: it edges out the GTX 860M (2967) by 0.5%, the GTX 750 Ti (2953) by 1%, the Quadro P600 (2923) by 2.1%, and even the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2913) by 2.4% in this specific OpenCL test. The GT 440's score of 2645 sits in a lower tier, trailing the Arc Pro B50 (2660) by 0.5%, the GT 1030 (2662) by 0.6%, and the Quadro K1100M (2664) by 0.7%, while only beating the GT 720M (2605) by 1.5%. This shows the 820A is performing at a level that rivals much newer and more expensive GPUs in this benchmark, while the GT 440 is firmly in entry-level territory.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A wins on raw benchmark performance, power efficiency, and architectural modernity. It is 12.8% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL, uses 15 W versus 65 W, and is built on a smaller 28 nm process. The 820A is the right choice for any application that prioritizes compute output per watt, such as thin-and-light laptops or embedded systems where cooling and battery life are constraints. Its 8 ROPs and higher effective memory clock help it punch above its weight in the OpenCL workload, and its percentile ranking (19th vs 17th) confirms it is the stronger part overall.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 wins on memory bandwidth, peak compute throughput, and desktop usability. Its 128-bit bus delivers 28.80 GB/s, which is 79.8% more than the 820A's 16.02 GB/s, and its FP32 output of 311.0 GFLOPS is 29.6% higher. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound or that scale with raw shader throughput, the GT 440 could theoretically outperform the 820A, even though it loses the specific OpenCL test. The GT 440 also has standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.3a, VGA), a conventional single-slot form factor, and a 145 mm length that fits in standard desktop cases. It is the only one of the two that can be installed as a standalone desktop GPU.

The use-case split is stark. If you need a desktop graphics card with physical outputs and a standard slot, the GT 440 is your only option, the 820A is an IGP with no desktop connectivity. If you need low-power compute in a portable or embedded context, the 820A is clearly superior, offering better benchmark scores at less than a quarter of the TDP. For anyone building a retro or low-end desktop system, the GT 440's launch MSRP of 79 USD reflects its original positioning, but the 820A's lack of a launch MSRP underscores its role as an integrated part rather than a retail product. In short: the 820A is the better GPU, but the GT 440 is the better desktop card.