GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER represent two extremes of the GPU spectrum, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The 820A is a 28 nm Fermi 2.0 part designed for basic mobile integration, while the RTX 5070 SUPER is a 5 nm Blackwell 2.0 behemoth aimed at high-end desktop performance. Benchmark results place both cards at similar percentile positions, 19th and 18th, respectively, but this similarity is misleading, as they are tested in completely different suites and target entirely different workloads. The following analysis breaks down their architectural gulf, benchmark positioning, and the practical implications of their specifications.

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 5070 SUPER delivers 32.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 820A manages only 240.0 GFLOPS. This represents a difference of over 130 times in raw shader throughput, with the newer card's 6400 shading units vastly outnumbering the 820A's 96.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The 820A comes with 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5070 SUPER features 18 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus, providing 672.0 GB/s, a 42-fold increase in memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better ray tracing and AI capabilities?

A: The RTX 5070 SUPER includes 50 RT cores and 200 tensor cores, enabling dedicated ray tracing and AI acceleration. The 820A has no such hardware, as its Fermi 2.0 architecture predates these features entirely.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The 820A is rated at 15 W TDP and requires no power connectors, suited for integrated graphics. The RTX 5070 SUPER draws 275 W and needs a single 16-pin power connector, reflecting its high-performance design.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare in their respective tests?

A: The 820A scores 2983 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the RTX 5070 SUPER scores 2690 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. These tests are not directly comparable, as they measure different workloads and API performance.

Q: What are the production statuses of these GPUs?

A: The 820A is end-of-life, having been released in March 2014. The RTX 5070 SUPER is active, with a release date of December 2025, indicating it is a current-generation product.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two NVIDIA GPUs is immense, spanning process technology, core design, and feature sets. The 820A is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture using TSMC's 28 nm process, housing 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die. Its transistor density is 5.0M per mm², a figure that seems primitive next to the RTX 5070 SUPER's Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm node. The newer card packs 31,100 million transistors onto a 263 mm² die, achieving a density of 118.3M per mm², a 23-fold improvement in integration.

The compute cores tell a similar story of generational leaps. The 820A's 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 2.500 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 10.00 GTexel/s. In contrast, the RTX 5070 SUPER deploys 6400 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, pushing pixel rate to 201.0 GPixel/s and texture rate to 502.4 GTexel/s. The newer card also introduces 50 RT cores and 200 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the older Fermi design, enabling hardware ray tracing and tensor-accelerated workloads.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The 820A uses 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, a configuration that was already modest for its era. The RTX 5070 SUPER uses 18 GB of GDDR7 across a 192-bit interface, with a memory clock of 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The bandwidth differential, 16.02 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s, underscores how memory technology has evolved to feed increasingly parallel compute engines. Furthermore, the 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but lacks Vulkan support, while the RTX 5070 SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, aligning with modern graphics APIs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is unavailable, as the FACT PACK lists no common tests between the two GPUs. However, their respective benchmark scores and nearest rival comparisons provide a basis for interpretation. The 820A achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 2983, placing it 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M (2967) and 1% ahead of the 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%. These deltas indicate that, within its own test suite, the 820A performs competitively against a range of older and newer cards, though the context is a legacy OpenCL workload.

The RTX 5070 SUPER, meanwhile, scores 2690 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its nearest rivals show a different competitive landscape: it sits 1% above the Quadro K1100M (2664), 1.1% above the GT 1030 (2662) and Intel Arc Pro B50 (2660), and 1.7% above the GT 440 (2645). These margins are narrow, suggesting that the Steel Nomad test at this tier yields tightly clustered results, likely due to the test's specific demands on DX12 features that these cards handle with varying efficiency.

Interpreting these scores across different benchmarks requires caution. The 820A's OpenCL result reflects its compute capabilities in a general-purpose context, where its low power draw and simple architecture may perform adequately for basic tasks. The RTX 5070 SUPER's DX12 score, by contrast, indicates its ability to handle modern gaming and graphics workloads, though its 18th percentile ranking suggests that in this particular test, it does not dominate as one might expect from its raw specs. The percentile positions, 19th for the 820A and 18th for the RTX 5070 SUPER, imply both cards are mid-to-low tier in their respective benchmark universes, but the RTX 5070 SUPER's far higher absolute capabilities in real-world scenarios are evident from its architectural advantages.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the RTX 5070 SUPER is the superior GPU for any modern, demanding workload. Its 32.15 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, and dedicated RT and tensor cores make it suitable for high-resolution gaming, ray tracing, and AI-accelerated tasks. The 820A, with its 240.0 GFLOPS and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, is confined to basic display output and legacy applications, a fact reflected in its end-of-life status and 15 W TDP. The 820A's only advantages are its minimal power requirements and integrated nature, which could suit low-power embedded systems or basic office machines, but its performance is orders of magnitude below the RTX 5070 SUPER.

For users seeking a card for gaming or content creation, the RTX 5070 SUPER is the only viable choice, provided the 275 W power draw and dual-slot footprint are acceptable. The 820A's benchmark score, while close to its rivals in OpenCL, does not translate to modern gaming performance, as its DirectX 12 (11_0) support lacks the features of the RTX 5070 SUPER's DirectX 12 Ultimate. The RTX 5070 SUPER's active production status and recent release date further reinforce its position as a current-generation part, whereas the 820A is a legacy product. The verdict is unambiguous: the RTX 5070 SUPER dominates in every measurable performance category, and the 820A should only be considered for scenarios where its low power and small footprint are paramount.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA GeForce 820A and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER:

• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 vs. Blackwell 2.0
• Process Node: 28 nm vs. 5 nm
• Transistors: 585 million vs. 31,100 million
• Die Size: 116 mm² vs. 263 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.0M / mm² vs. 118.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not specified vs. 2325 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not specified vs. 2512 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) vs. 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1024 MB vs. 18 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs. GDDR7
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs. 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 16.02 GB/s vs. 672.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 96 vs. 6400
• TMUs: 16 vs. 200
• ROPs: 8 vs. 80
• RT Cores: None vs. 50
• Tensor Cores: None vs. 200
• Pixel Rate: 2.500 GPixel/s vs. 201.0 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 10.00 GTexel/s vs. 502.4 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 240.0 GFLOPS vs. 32.15 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Not specified vs. 32.15 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 15 W vs. 275 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs. Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs. 1x 16-pin
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs. PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs. 1x HDMI 2.1b 3x DisplayPort 2.1b
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs. 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: Not specified vs. 1.4
• Dimensions: Not specified vs. 245 mm (9.6 inches) length, 115 mm (4.5 inches) height, 40 mm (1.6 inches) width
• Production Status: End-of-life vs. Active
• Release Date: 2014-03-16 vs. 2025-12-31
• Predecessor: GeForce 700A vs. Not specified
• Successor: GeForce 900A vs. Not specified