GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000M scores 3106, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2983. That is a 4% advantage for the Quadro, as shown in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the GeForce 820A compare to its nearest rivals in overall benchmark scores?

A: The GeForce 820A has an average benchmark score of 2983, which places it 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) in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The GeForce 820A sits at the 19th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000M sits slightly lower at the 17th percentile. Despite the Quadro winning the head-to-head, its average benchmark score across multiple tests (2555) is dragged down by other workloads.

Q: What additional benchmark scores does the Quadro K2000M have?

A: Beyond OpenCL, the Quadro K2000M scores 1932 in Geekbench Metal and 2626 in Geekbench Vulkan. The GeForce 820A only has a single OpenCL score in the data.

Q: How does the Quadro K2000M fare against its own nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro's average score of 2555 is 1.9% behind the GeForce GT 720M (2605), 3.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7400 (2467), 3.4% behind the GeForce GT 440 (2645), and 3.9% behind the Intel Arc Pro B50 (2660).

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro's GK107 chip packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8M transistors per mm². The GeForce's GF117 chip has 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, for a density of 5.0M per mm². That means the Quadro has over double the transistor density.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architecture generations, and the data shows a fundamental shift in design philosophy. The GeForce 820A is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF117 chip, while the Quadro K2000M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, so the differences come from the architectural layout rather than manufacturing.

The transistor counts tell a dramatic story. The Quadro's GK107 contains 1,270 million transistors, more than double the 585 million found in the GeForce's GF117. Interestingly, the die sizes are nearly identical, 118 mm² for the Quadro versus 116 mm² for the GeForce. This results in a transistor density of 10.8M per mm² for the Quadro versus 5.0M per mm² for the GeForce. The Kepler architecture clearly packs far more logic into the same silicon area.

The compute resources are where the architectures diverge sharply. The Quadro K2000M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 820A has just 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 4x difference in shading units, a 2x difference in TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. Kepler's design emphasizes raw parallelism, while Fermi 2.0 in this implementation is far more modest.

Memory subsystems also differ due to architecture. The Quadro features a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of DDR3, while the GeForce uses a 64-bit bus with 1 GB of DDR3. The Quadro's memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GeForce runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Despite the GeForce's higher memory clock, the Quadro's wider bus delivers far more bandwidth.

Feature support shows a notable split. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K2000M explicitly supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GeForce 820A has no Vulkan version listed in the data. This suggests the Kepler architecture carries forward more modern API compatibility in the graphics stack.

The power and form factor differences reflect their intended roles. The GeForce 820A is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 15 W TDP, while the Quadro K2000M is an MXM module with a 55 W TDP. The Quadro's higher power envelope enables its larger compute array, but it also requires a modular slot rather than being integrated directly.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are close. The Quadro K2000M scores 3106, defeating the GeForce 820A's 2983 by a margin of 4%. This is a tighter race than the raw specifications might suggest. The Quadro has 4x the shading units and more than double the transistors, yet it only manages a 4% lead in this compute workload.

What makes this interesting is that the GeForce 820A actually holds its own despite the massive architectural disadvantage. Its nearest rivals in the OpenCL test include the GeForce GTX 860M at 2967 and the GTX 750 Ti at 2953, both of which are within 1% of its score. The Quadro, meanwhile, sits in a different competitive neighborhood, its average score of 2555 puts it near the GeForce GT 720M (2605) and behind the GeForce GT 440 (2645) and Intel Arc Pro B50 (2660).

The GeForce 820A's OpenCL score of 2983 is remarkably competitive given its 15 W TDP and 96 shading units. It outperforms the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB's OpenCL score of 2913 by 2.4%, which speaks to the efficiency of the Fermi 2.0 architecture in this specific workload. The Quadro's OpenCL win is real but narrow, and it comes at the cost of a 55 W power draw versus 15 W.

The Quadro's additional benchmark scores reveal a more complex picture. Its Vulkan score of 2626 is respectable, but its Metal score of 1932 is substantially lower. The average benchmark score of 2555 reflects this spread, pulling its overall standing down to the 17th percentile. The GeForce 820A, with only a single OpenCL result, holds a 19th percentile ranking based on that one strong showing.

When considering the delta percentages, the Quadro's 4% OpenCL lead is the only head-to-head data point. The two GPUs never appear in each other's nearest rivals lists, indicating they occupy different performance tiers in the broader database. The GeForce 820A competes with GTX-class parts, while the Quadro K2000M sits among entry-level GT and older Radeon cards.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is in memory bandwidth. The Quadro K2000M delivers 28.80 GB/s through its 128-bit bus, while the GeForce 820A manages just 16.02 GB/s via a 64-bit bus. That is a 79.8% advantage for the Quadro, despite running slower memory clocks. The Quadro also has 2 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB, which matters for texture-heavy workloads.

Compute throughput follows the hardware counts. The Quadro's FP32 performance is 572.2 GFLOPS, while the GeForce 820A produces 240.0 GFLOPS. The pixel rate is 5.960 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 2.500 GPixel/s for the GeForce, and the texture rate is 23.84 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GTexel/s. Every throughput metric favors the Quadro by roughly 2.4x to 2.5x.

Clock speeds show a contrasting story. The GeForce 820A has no base or boost clock listed in the data, while the Quadro K2000M runs at a fixed 745 MHz base and boost. The GeForce's memory clock is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), which is higher than the Quadro's 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GeForce compensates for its narrower bus with faster memory signaling.

Form factor and power are major separators. The GeForce 820A is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Quadro K2000M is an MXM Module with a 55 W TDP. The bus interface also differs: the GeForce uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0). Both have "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, and neither lists a suggested PSU.

The production timelines differ as well. The GeForce 820A was released in March 2014, while the Quadro K2000M launched in May 2012. The GeForce's predecessor is the GeForce 700A and its successor is the GeForce 900A. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear but nuanced picture. The Quadro K2000M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, taking the OpenCL test 3106 to 2983 for a 4% victory. It also dominates every raw specification: 4x the shading units, double the ROPs and TMUs, double the memory capacity, nearly double the bandwidth, and more than double the FP32 throughput. If the question is purely about peak compute capability, the Quadro is the answer.

However, the GeForce 820A is not without its strengths. It achieves 96.1% of the Quadro's OpenCL score while drawing only 27.3% of the power (15 W versus 55 W). It also carries a higher memory clock and a more modern release date. The GeForce's 19th percentile ranking is actually above the Quadro's 17th percentile, despite the Quadro's hardware advantage.

The choice depends on the use case. The Quadro K2000M is the pick for workloads that can leverage its wider memory bus and larger compute array, tasks that are memory-bandwidth-bound or heavily parallel. The GeForce 820A makes sense for scenarios where power efficiency and integration matter more than raw throughput, given its IGP form factor and minimal power draw.

Neither GPU is a performance leader by modern standards. The GeForce 820A sits near the GTX 860M and GTX 750 Ti in OpenCL, while the Quadro K2000M's average score trails the GeForce GT 720M. For a mobile workstation or an integrated system, the Quadro's MXM form factor and extra VRAM could be decisive. For a low-power embedded or portable device, the GeForce's IGP design is the logical fit.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000M wins in raw compute benchmarks and memory-intensive scenarios. Its 28.80 GB/s bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s gives it a 79.8% advantage in memory throughput, which directly benefits large data transfers and texture-heavy rendering. The 572.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance is 138.4% higher than the GeForce's 240.0 GFLOPS, making it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute. The 2 GB VRAM capacity also allows larger working sets than the 1 GB on the GeForce.

The GeForce 820A wins in power efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is 72.7% lower than the Quadro's 55 W, which is critical for battery-powered or thermally constrained devices. As an IGP, it requires no separate module slot and no power connectors, simplifying system design. Its higher memory clock of 1001 MHz versus 900 MHz shows the Fermi design tries to compensate for its narrow bus with faster signaling.

In the competitive context, the GeForce 820A actually looks stronger relative to its peers. Its OpenCL score of 2983 beats the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 2.4% and the Quadro P600 by 2.1%, placing it in surprisingly fast company. The Quadro K2000M's average score of 2555 puts it 1.9% behind the GeForce GT 720M and 3.4% behind the GeForce GT 440, showing it struggles against older mainstream parts.

For Vulkan-specific workloads, the Quadro K2000M has a distinct advantage, it lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the GeForce 820A has no Vulkan version in its data. This makes the Quadro the safer choice for modern cross-platform graphics APIs. The GeForce 820A counters with a newer release date (March 2014 versus May 2012), suggesting better driver maturity for its generation.

The verdict from the data is straightforward. The Quadro K2000M is the performance pick, winning the head-to-head and offering superior specifications across the board. The GeForce 820A is the efficiency pick, delivering comparable OpenCL performance at a fraction of the power draw. For users prioritizing raw compute and memory bandwidth, the Quadro wins. For those prioritizing power efficiency and system integration, the GeForce is the better fit.