NVIDIA GeForce 820A vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 as the clear performance leader between these two end-of-life graphics processors. In the sole recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898 against the GeForce 820A's 2983, a 30.7% advantage. The Quadro 2000 also sits in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GeForce 820A sits in the 19th percentile. For any workload that relies on raw compute throughput, the Quadro 2000 is the only rational choice from this pair.

The GeForce 820A is a low-power integrated-class part with a 15 W TDP, designed for portable devices where power draw is the primary constraint. Its performance profile, 240.0 GFLOPS FP32, is exactly half of the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS. The data shows no benchmark where the GeForce 820A wins. Users who need maximum compute per watt in a mobile form factor would select the GeForce 820A, but only if the Quadro 2000's single-slot, 62 W desktop card cannot physically be accommodated. The Quadro 2000 also has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which reflects its workstation positioning at release.

The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro 2000 wins on every measurable performance axis. The GeForce 820A exists for a different physical niche, not for competitive performance. The database records one win for the Quadro 2000 and zero for the GeForce 820A.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of NVIDIA's Fermi architecture. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip built on Fermi, a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce 820A uses the GF117 chip built on Fermi 2.0, a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process shrink gives the GeForce 820A a higher transistor density: 5.0M transistors per mm² versus 4.9M per mm² for the Quadro 2000. However, the Quadro 2000 has far more silicon to work with. Its die size is 238 mm² and it contains 1,170 million transistors. The GeForce 820A's die is 116 mm² with 585 million transistors, exactly half the transistor count.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 820A has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Every compute block is halved. This directly explains the FP32 throughput: 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000 versus 240.0 GFLOPS for the GeForce 820A. Pixel rate follows the same pattern: 5.000 GPixel/s versus 2.500 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 820A uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 16.02 GB/s. The memory clock is also different: 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 2000 versus 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the GeForce 820A. The Quadro 2000's wider bus and faster memory type give it 2.6 times the memory bandwidth of the GeForce 820A.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither has Vulkan support recorded. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It has display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The GeForce 820A is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The data records a single benchmark category: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 2000 wins that test with a score of 3898 against 2983. There are no other recorded benchmarks where the GeForce 820A wins. The win count is 1 for the Quadro 2000 and 0 for the GeForce 820A.

For general compute workloads, the Quadro 2000's 30.7% lead in OpenCL makes it the superior choice for any task that uses OpenCL acceleration. Its higher memory bandwidth (41.60 GB/s vs 16.02 GB/s) suggests it will also handle memory-intensive workloads better, though this is not directly benchmarked. The Quadro 2000's workstation heritage, with its DVI and DisplayPort outputs, means it can drive professional displays. The GeForce 820A, being portable device dependent, has no fixed display output configuration.

The GeForce 820A wins only in the power efficiency domain, which is not a benchmark score but a physical characteristic. Its 15 W TDP versus 62 W means it draws far less power. For fanless or battery-powered designs, this is the only scenario where the GeForce 820A is preferable. The data does not show any performance scenario where it wins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 30.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 820A's score of 2983.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth using 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GeForce 820A has 16.02 GB/s using 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the FP32 compute capabilities of each?

A: The Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS FP32. The GeForce 820A delivers 240.0 GFLOPS FP32, exactly half.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units. The GeForce 820A has 96 shading units.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Quadro 2000 is built on a 40 nm process with a 238 mm² die. The GeForce 820A is built on a 28 nm process with a 116 mm² die.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 2000 was released on December 23, 2010. The GeForce 820A was released on March 16, 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 2000 scores 3898, and the GeForce 820A scores 2983. The delta is 30.7% in favor of the Quadro 2000. This is the largest and only recorded performance gap.

To contextualize the Quadro 2000's score, its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883 (0.4% slower), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D at 3919 (0.5% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D at 3930 (0.8% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (1.4% faster). The Quadro 2000 sits in a tight cluster around the 3900 mark, meaning its OpenCL performance is very close to several other mid-range parts from its era.

The GeForce 820A's nearest rivals tell a different story. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2967 (0.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti scores 2953 (1% slower), the NVIDIA Quadro P600 scores 2923 (2.1% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2913 (2.4% slower). This is a surprising cluster: the GeForce 820A actually scores slightly higher than all four of these rivals, despite the RTX 4060 Ti being a modern high-end card. This suggests the Geekbench OpenCL workload is not strongly sensitive to the architectural advantages of newer GPUs, or that the GeForce 820A's drivers extract unusually good OpenCL performance.

The 30.7% gap between the Quadro 2000 and GeForce 820A is consistent with the raw hardware differences. The Quadro 2000 has double the shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, double the FP32 throughput, double the texture rate, double the pixel rate, and 2.6 times the memory bandwidth. The only area where the GeForce 820A is not at a disadvantage is process node (28 nm vs 40 nm) and power draw (15 W vs 62 W).

The recorded data shows no benchmark where the GeForce 820A wins. The win tally is 1-0 in favor of the Quadro 2000. For any OpenCL-based workload, the Quadro 2000 is the clear choice. The GeForce 820A's only advantage is its suitability for low-power portable devices, which is a physical design consideration rather than a performance metric. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the Quadro 2000 is in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 820A is in the 19th percentile. Both are below average, but the Quadro 2000 is meaningfully less below average.