GPU Comparison

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is in a completely different performance class than the NVIDIA GeForce 820A. In the only shared benchmark, the Quadro P1000 delivers a 355.4% higher score, a gap that dwarfs the modest differences seen between the P1000 and its own nearest rivals. The GeForce 820A is an entry-level mobile part from 2014, while the Quadro P1000 is a professional desktop card from 2017, and every architectural and specification difference reinforces this divide.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P1000 wins in every measurable category where both products have data. The head-to-head benchmark results show a single comparison, Geekbench OpenCL, and the Quadro P1000 takes it with a score of 13584 against the 820A’s 2983, a delta of 355.4%. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and market-segment gap made visible in raw compute throughput.

The GeForce 820A has no benchmark wins in the data. Its single recorded score of 2983 in Geekbench OpenCL places it at the 19th percentile of all GPUs, barely below the Quadro P1000’s 20th percentile. Yet that percentile similarity is misleading: the 820A’s score is only 22% of the P1000’s, and the P1000’s average benchmark score of 3163 is actually higher than the 820A’s only score. The 820A’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 860M (0.5% ahead) and the GeForce GTX 750 Ti (1% ahead), which shows it sits in a low-performance cluster where small percentage differences matter. The Quadro P1000’s nearest rivals, by contrast, include the Intel Arc Pro B60 (-0.6%) and the GeForce GT 640 (-1.5%), a group that operates at roughly 3,100–3,300 average score, still far below the P1000’s own peak scores.

For use-case separation, the Quadro P1000 is the clear choice for any task requiring compute acceleration, professional rendering, or multi-display output. The 820A is suited only for the most basic 2D desktop workloads or legacy embedded systems where power draw is the primary constraint. The data shows no scenario where the 820A outperforms the P1000.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The Quadro P1000 uses the Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the GeForce 820A uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink alone explains much of the efficiency and performance gap: the P1000 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The 820A manages only 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, with a density of 5.0M per mm², exactly one-fifth the density.

The shader and memory hierarchy differences are stark. The Quadro P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GeForce 820A has just 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 6.7x advantage in shading units and a 4x advantage in ROPs for the P1000. The pixel rate tells the story: 47.36 GPixel/s for the P1000 versus 2.500 GPixel/s for the 820A, a 19x difference. Texture rate is 59.20 GTexel/s versus 10.00 GTexel/s, a 5.9x gap.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The Quadro P1000 delivers 1.894 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the 820A manages 240.0 GFLOPS, a 7.9x difference. The P1000 also has FP16 capability at 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the 820A has no FP16 data at all. The 820A’s memory clock is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) compared to the P1000’s 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), and the memory type differs: GDDR5 for the P1000 versus DDR3 for the 820A.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is decisive. The Quadro P1000 scores 13584, while the GeForce 820A scores 2983. The delta of 355.4% means the P1000 is 4.55 times faster in this compute test. For context, the P1000’s nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro B60, is only 0.6% behind its average score, meaning the P1000’s advantage over the 820A is roughly 600 times larger than the gap between the P1000 and its closest competitor.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite available only for the P1000, the pattern of professional-grade strength continues. In Passmark G3D, the P1000 scores 4512; in Passmark GPU Compute, it scores 1891. The 820A has no scores for these tests in the data, so no direct comparison is possible, but the OpenCL result alone establishes the hierarchy. The P1000’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 7739 further confirms its modern API support, whereas the 820A has no Vulkan data, its API list shows DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan.

The 820A’s nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 860M, sits just 0.5% ahead with an average score of 2967, and the Quadro P600 is 2.1% behind with 2923. This tells us the 820A is competitive with other low-end GPUs from its era, but that entire cluster operates at roughly 2,900–3,000 average score, the same ballpark as the 820A’s single 2983 score. The P1000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3163, which is higher than the 820A’s best individual score, even though the P1000’s average is dragged down by its lower Passmark DirectX scores (19–79 range).

Specification Differences

The specification table shows fundamental divergences in every major component:

• Process Node: 14 nm (Samsung) for the P1000 versus 28 nm (TSMC) for the 820A.
• Transistors: 3,300 million versus 585 million.
• Die Size: 132 mm² versus 116 mm².
• Transistor Density: 25.0M / mm² versus 5.0M / mm².
• Base/Boost Clocks: The P1000 has a base of 1266 MHz and boost of 1480 MHz; the 820A has no base or boost clocks listed.
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 1024 MB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.
• Shading Units: 640 versus 96.
• TMUs: 40 versus 16.
• ROPs: 32 versus 8.
• FP32: 1.894 TFLOPS versus 240.0 GFLOPS.
• FP16: 29.60 GFLOPS on the P1000; none listed for the 820A.
• TDP: 47 W versus 15 W.
• Slot Width: Single-slot for the P1000 versus IGP (integrated) for the 820A.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the P1000 versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the 820A.
• APIs: The P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan.
• Release Date: 2017-02-06 for the P1000 versus 2014-03-16 for the 820A.

The power draw difference is notable: the 820A consumes 15 W, making it suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs, while the P1000 draws 47 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The P1000’s dimensions are 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height; the 820A has no dimensions listed, consistent with its IGP form factor.

FAQ

Q: Is the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 faster than the GeForce 820A?

A: Yes, by a massive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P1000 scores 13584 versus 2983 for the 820A, a delta of 355.4%.

Q: What is the biggest architectural difference between the two?

A: The P1000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm Samsung process, while the 820A uses Fermi 2.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process. The P1000 also has 640 shading units versus 96 for the 820A.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P1000, with 80.19 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The 820A has 16.02 GB/s from 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

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. The Quadro P1000 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do their compute performances compare?

A: The P1000 delivers 1.894 TFLOPS of FP32, while the 820A delivers 240.0 GFLOPS, a 7.9x difference. The P1000 also has FP16 support at 29.60 GFLOPS; the 820A has no FP16 data.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The GeForce 820A, at 15 W TDP, versus 47 W for the Quadro P1000. The 820A is an IGP (integrated) part, while the P1000 is a single-slot card.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is the superior GPU in every measurable way. Its 355.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single headline number, but the supporting specifications, 6.7x more shading units, 5x more memory bandwidth, 7.9x higher FP32 throughput, and a two-generation newer architecture, all point the same direction. The P1000 is designed for professional workloads, as shown by its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and Vulkan 1.4 support, and it delivers the compute headroom to handle those tasks.

The GeForce 820A’s only advantage is power efficiency: 15 W versus 47 W, and its IGP form factor means it can be integrated directly into a motherboard or portable device. For a system where the absolute minimum power draw is the priority and performance is secondary, the 820A has a niche. But that niche is extremely narrow. The 820A’s nearest rivals, such as the GeForce GTX 860M (0.5% ahead) and the Quadro P600 (2.1% behind), all cluster around its score, indicating it is at the bottom of even the low-end GPU tier.

Who should pick which? A user needing professional rendering, compute acceleration, or multi-display output should choose the Quadro P1000 without hesitation. The benchmark results show it is capable of 1.894 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 47.36 GPixel/s pixel fill, figures that the 820A cannot approach. A system designer building a low-power embedded device with no need for 3D acceleration might consider the 820A for its 15 W draw and integrated form factor. But the performance gap is so large that any application requiring even modest GPU work would be severely constrained on the 820A. The verdict is clear: the Quadro P1000 wins decisively, and the 820A is only relevant in the most power-constrained, performance-agnostic scenarios.