GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A and NVIDIA Quadro K1100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target very different segments of the market. The 820A is an integrated-class part built for low-power notebooks, while the K1100M is a professional mobile workstation GPU. Despite their different intended roles, benchmark data shows they land in a similar performance tier, making for a surprisingly close comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are remarkably tight. The Quadro K1100M scores 3060, while the GeForce 820A scores 2983. This gives the Quadro a 2.5% lead in this single head-to-head test. While the Quadro wins, the margin is small enough to be considered within run-to-run variance for many workloads. The 820A is not far behind, trailing by just 77 points.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the 820A has an average benchmark score of 2983, which places it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 860M, which scores 2967, a 0.5% difference. The 820A also edges out the GeForce GTX 750 Ti (2953, 1% slower) and the Quadro P600 (2923, 2.1% slower). Even the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB appears nearby with a score of 2913, which is 2.4% behind the 820A in this particular aggregate metric.

The Quadro K1100M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 2664 across all its tested workloads, OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan. This lands it in the 18th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GT 1030, which scores 2662, a 0.1% difference. The Intel Arc Pro B50 (2660, 0.2% behind) and the GeForce GT 440 (2645, 0.7% behind) are also close. Interestingly, the GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER appears in the rival list with a score of 2690, which is 1% faster than the K1100M, a testament to how aggregate scores can compress performance differences across vastly different architectures.

The discrepancy between the head-to-head OpenCL result and the average scores is worth noting. The K1100M wins the direct OpenCL comparison by 2.5%, yet its average score across three tests is lower than the 820A's single OpenCL score. This suggests the K1100M's OpenCL performance is its strongest suite, while its other API scores drag the average down.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates a clear split in strengths. The GeForce 820A wins in the single benchmark where it was tested, posting an OpenCL score of 2983. This is its only data point, so its "win" is more about consistency than dominance. The 820A's score is competitive with the K1100M's OpenCL result, showing that even a low-power Fermi 2.0 part can hold its own in compute tasks.

The Quadro K1100M wins the head-to-head OpenCL comparison, but more importantly, it demonstrates versatility across multiple APIs. Its OpenCL score is its best at 3060, followed by Vulkan at 2884 and Metal at 2048. The Vulkan score is notable because the 820A has no Vulkan support listed at all, the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175 while the 820A's API list omits it entirely. This makes the K1100M the clear choice for any Vulkan-based workload, as the 820A cannot even run such applications.

The K1100M also wins on raw hardware resources. It has 384 shading units versus the 820A's 96, 32 texture mapping units versus 16, and 16 ROPs versus 8. Its FP32 performance is 542.2 GFLOPS compared to 240.0 GFLOPS. The pixel rate is 5.648 GPixel/s versus 2.500 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 22.59 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GTexel/s. In every raw throughput metric, the K1100M is more than double the 820A. Yet the OpenCL scores are nearly identical, which suggests the 820A's architecture extracts more efficiency per compute unit, or the benchmark is not fully utilizing the K1100M's additional hardware.

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion. For pure OpenCL compute, the two GPUs are essentially tied, with the Quadro K1100M holding a narrow 2.5% advantage. The 820A's single score of 2983 is within striking distance of the K1100M's 3060, and the 820A's average is actually higher than the K1100M's average. However, the K1100M offers broader API support, particularly Vulkan, which the 820A lacks entirely.

The 820A is the better choice for users who prioritize OpenCL workloads and low power draw. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the K1100M's 45 W TDP, making it far more suitable for thin-and-light systems. The 820A is also an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the K1100M is an MXM module, a form factor that requires a specific slot and cooling solution.

The Quadro K1100M is the better choice for professional mobile workstations that need to run a variety of compute APIs. Its Vulkan support alone gives it a functional advantage, and its higher raw throughput (542.2 GFLOPS FP32) suggests it will handle more demanding graphical workloads better, even if the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect this. The K1100M also has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 1 GB of DDR3, and a 128-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, resulting in 44.80 GB/s of bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s. This memory advantage is substantial and likely helps in texture-heavy scenes.

Neither GPU is a performance champion, both sit in the 18th and 19th percentiles of all GPUs. The 820A edges out the K1100M in percentile ranking despite losing the head-to-head test, which is a quirk of the different benchmark sets used. Ultimately, the choice comes down to form factor and API needs: the 820A for ultra-low-power integrated use, the K1100M for modular professional systems requiring Vulkan and higher memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1100M scores 3060 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983. The K1100M is 2.5% faster in this specific test.

Q: Does the GeForce 820A support Vulkan?

A: No. The 820A's API list includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan version is listed. The Quadro K1100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The 820A has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The K1100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 44.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the raw shading unit counts?

A: The GeForce 820A has 96 shading units, while the Quadro K1100M has 384 shading units, a four-fold difference in favor of the K1100M.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The Quadro K1100M delivers 542.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, more than double the GeForce 820A's 240.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 820A has a TDP of 15 W, while the K1100M has a TDP of 45 W. The 820A is an IGP with no power connectors, while the K1100M is an MXM module also without power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GeForce 820A uses the GF117 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the Quadro K1100M uses the GK107 chip based on Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The 820A contains 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.0M per mm². The K1100M packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, resulting in a much higher density of 10.8M per mm².

The Kepler architecture in the K1100M is newer and more advanced than the Fermi 2.0 in the 820A. This is reflected in the API support: the K1100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 820A does not list Vulkan support at all. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12 (11_0). The K1100M's base and boost clocks are both 706 MHz, while the 820A has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks also differ: the 820A runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the K1100M runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective).

The 820A is from the GeForce 800A generation, succeeding the GeForce 700A and preceding the GeForce 900A. The K1100M is from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, succeeding the Quadro Fermi-M and preceding the Quadro Maxwell-M. The 820A's slot width is IGP, indicating it is integrated into the motherboard, while the K1100M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and is an MXM Module form factor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The 820A has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the K1100M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The K1100M's pixel rate is 5.648 GPixel/s versus 2.500 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 22.59 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GTexel/s.

Memory is a major differentiator: the 820A has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, while the K1100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 44.80 GB/s bandwidth. The 820A's memory clock is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the K1100M's is 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The K1100M's higher effective clock and wider bus give it nearly three times the memory bandwidth.

Power and form factor also differ significantly. The 820A has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors, while the K1100M has a 45 W TDP and is an MXM Module with no power connectors. The bus interfaces differ: the 820A uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the K1100M uses MXM-A (3.0). Both have "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs.

The release dates are close: the 820A was released on 2014-03-16, while the K1100M came earlier on 2013-07-22. Both are end-of-life products. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the data. The 820A's chip is GF117, while the K1100M's is GK107. The 820A's transistor count is 585 million, and the K1100M's is 1,270 million. Die sizes are nearly identical at 116 mm² and 118 mm², but transistor density is 5.0M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm². The 820A belongs to the GeForce 800A generation, while the K1100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation.