GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and the NVIDIA GeForce 820A are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they serve fundamentally different purposes and performance tiers. The data shows a clear, if modest, performance advantage for the Quadro 2000M, which scores 15.1% higher than the GeForce 820A in the single available benchmark. However, the two GPUs are separated by more than just raw compute, with significant differences in architecture, memory configuration, and power characteristics that dictate where each one is the more sensible choice.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a decisive, albeit narrow, victory for the Quadro 2000M in raw compute performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 2000M scores 3434, while the GeForce 820A scores 2983, resulting in a 15.1% delta in favor of the Quadro. This makes the Quadro 2000M the clear winner for any workload that relies heavily on general-purpose compute or shader throughput. Its performance places it in the 21st percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 820A sits slightly lower at the 19th percentile.

The GeForce 820A, however, wins decisively on efficiency and integration. With a TDP of just 15 W compared to the Quadro 2000M's 55 W, the 820A is designed for low-power, thin-and-light notebooks where battery life and thermals are paramount. The 820A is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) solution, meaning it is designed to be soldered directly onto the motherboard, whereas the Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module, a removable card. The 820A also uses a newer 28 nm process node compared to the 40 nm node of the Quadro 2000M, which is a key factor in its superior power efficiency.

For users who need maximum compute performance in a mobile workstation, the Quadro 2000M is the winner. For users who need a basic, low-power GPU for everyday tasks and light media consumption in an ultraportable chassis, the GeForce 820A is the more appropriate choice. The data does not suggest the 820A can compete with the Quadro 2000M in raw throughput, but it offers a fundamentally different value proposition based on power and physical footprint.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different iterations of the Fermi architecture, which explains their divergent characteristics. The Quadro 2000M is based on the original Fermi architecture, utilizing the GF106 chip. In contrast, the GeForce 820A uses the GF117 chip, which is part of the "Fermi 2.0" architecture. This architectural revision, combined with a newer manufacturing process, is the primary driver of the 820A's improved efficiency.

The process node difference is stark: the Quadro 2000M is fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process, while the GeForce 820A is on a 28 nm process. This allows the 820A to pack a similar transistor density (5.0M / mm² vs. 4.9M / mm²) despite having fewer total transistors. The Quadro 2000M houses 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, whereas the GeForce 820A has just 585 million transistors on a much smaller 116 mm² die. This means the Quadro 2000M has a substantially larger and more complex silicon layout.

The compute resources also differ dramatically. The Quadro 2000M features 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The GeForce 820A is cut down significantly, with only 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This halving of core resources directly explains the Quadro's performance lead. The Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the 820A delivers 240.0 GFLOPS. Pixel and texture fill rates follow the same pattern, with the Quadro hitting 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s, versus the 820A's 2.500 GPixel/s and 10.00 GTexel/s.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, and neither lists Vulkan support. They also have identical display outputs, listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The key architectural takeaway is that the Quadro 2000M is a larger, more powerful Fermi chip, while the GeForce 820A is a smaller, more efficient Fermi 2.0 chip designed for low-power applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark provides a clear, unambiguous result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434, defeating the NVIDIA GeForce 820A's score of 2983 by a margin of 15.1%. This is a solid, double-digit performance advantage that places the Quadro 2000M in a higher performance class.

To contextualize the Quadro 2000M's score, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (score 3431, delta 0.1%) and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (score 3389, delta 1.3%). This shows that the Quadro 2000M is essentially on par with a desktop GeForce GT 740, a respectable result for a mobile workstation GPU. It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX by just 2.7%, indicating it is competitive with a much newer entry-level mobile chip.

The GeForce 820A's score of 2983 places it in the company of more powerful discrete GPUs, but only because its score is comparatively low. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M (score 2967, delta 0.5%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti (score 2953, delta 1%). This is a curious data point, as the 820A is a low-power IGP, yet its OpenCL score is just 0.5% higher than a GTX 860M. This suggests the benchmark may be heavily influenced by memory bandwidth or specific driver optimizations, rather than raw shader count. The 820A also outperforms the Quadro P600 by 2.1% and the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 2.4% in this specific test, which is an anomaly given the massive generational and performance gaps.

The head-to-head data is straightforward: the Quadro 2000M wins the only benchmark available. The GeForce 820A does not have a single benchmark win against the Quadro 2000M in the provided data.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is the superior performer. It wins the only available head-to-head comparison with a 15.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. For any user whose primary concern is raw compute throughput for professional applications, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated tasks, the Quadro 2000M is the clear choice. Its higher shading unit count, larger memory bus, and greater memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs. 16.02 GB/s) all contribute to this decisive advantage.

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A should be chosen by users who prioritize power efficiency and physical integration over performance. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro 2000M's 55 W, making it suitable for ultra-thin notebooks where cooling and battery life are critical. Its IGP form factor means it is permanently integrated into the system board, which is ideal for mass-produced, low-cost laptops. The 820A is not a competitor for the Quadro 2000M in performance, but it is a better fit for a different class of device.

The verdict is clear: pick the Quadro 2000M for performance, and the GeForce 820A for efficiency. The data does not support any other conclusion, as the Quadro 2000M wins the only benchmark that matters, while the 820A's advantages are purely in power draw and physical design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score of 3434, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 820A's score of 2983.

Q: What is the performance difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Quadro 2000M outperforms the GeForce 820A by 15.1% in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A is significantly more power-efficient, with a TDP of 15 W, while the Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 820A has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing 16.02 GB/s.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The Quadro 2000M uses the original Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, while the GeForce 820A uses Fermi 2.0 with the GF117 chip.

Q: What are the physical form factors of these GPUs?

A: The Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module, while the GeForce 820A is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor).

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two GPUs differ.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M | NVIDIA GeForce 820A |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Fermi | Fermi 2.0 |

| Chip | GF106 | GF117 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 585 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 116 mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

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

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

| Shading Units | 192 | 96 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.400 GPixel/s | 2.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.60 GTexel/s | 10.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 422.4 GFLOPS | 240.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2011-01-12 | 2014-03-16 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | GeForce 700A |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | GeForce 900A |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 5.0M / mm² |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 3434 | 2983 |

| Percentile vs. All GPUs | 21 | 19 |