GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two NVIDIA GPUs, and the verdict is straightforward: the Quadro P600 is decisively the stronger performer. In the sole head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P600 scores 11,181 against the GeForce 820A’s 2,983, a margin of 73.3% in favor of the Quadro. This is not a close contest; it is a generational and architectural gap made visible in raw compute output.

For the GeForce 820A, the data suggests it belongs in legacy or low-intensity roles. Its average benchmark score of 2,983 places it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms only a small fraction of the database. Its nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 860M, scores 2,967, a mere 0.5% difference, indicating that the 820A is essentially at parity with that older mobile part. The 820A is an end-of-life product from 2014, built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, and its performance profile is consistent with a basic, power-efficient integrated graphics solution.

The Quadro P600, while also end-of-life, offers a different value proposition. Its average benchmark score of 2,923 is marginally lower than the 820A’s, but this figure is misleading because it includes multiple benchmark types. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,181 is nearly four times higher than the 820A’s, and its Passmark G3D score of 3,317 further confirms its superior graphics capability. The P600 sits in the same 19th percentile overall, but its nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (0.3% difference) and the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF (0.4% difference), showing it competes with much more modern hardware in average score terms, despite its older Pascal architecture.

Therefore, the verdict is simple: choose the Quadro P600 for any task requiring actual graphics compute, from professional visualization to modern API support. Choose the GeForce 820A only if the specific constraints of a legacy system or an extremely low power envelope (15 W TDP vs. 40 W) are the absolute priority, and performance is a secondary concern. There is no scenario in the data where the 820A wins on capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P600. It scores 11,181, while the NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2,983. This represents a 73.3% difference in favor of the Quadro P600.

Q: How does the GeForce 820A compare to its nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 860M?

A: The data shows they are nearly identical. The 820A has an average benchmark score of 2,983, while the GTX 860M scores 2,967, a delta of only 0.5%.

Q: What is the performance gap between the Quadro P600 and the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB?

A: The difference is minimal. The Quadro P600 has an average score of 2,923, and the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB scores 2,913, a delta of 0.3% in favor of the P600.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs like DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The GeForce 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P600 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both also support OpenGL 4.6, but only the Quadro P600 has Vulkan support, listed as version 1.4.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GeForce 820A has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.13 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient based on the provided TDP?

A: The GeForce 820A has a TDP of 15 W, which is significantly lower than the Quadro P600’s 40 W. However, the Quadro P600’s performance is substantially higher, indicating a trade-off between power consumption and compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains their divergent performance characteristics. The GeForce 820A is based on the GF117 chip using the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is an older design, reflected in its transistor count of 585 million on a 116 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.0M / mm². The Fermi architecture was not designed for modern compute-heavy workloads, and its feature set is limited accordingly.

In contrast, the Quadro P600 uses the GP107 chip with the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This is a much more modern and efficient design. It packs 3,300 million transistors onto a slightly larger 132 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The Pascal architecture brings significant improvements in compute efficiency and supports newer features, including Vulkan 1.4, which the 820A lacks entirely.

The core configuration differences are stark. The 820A has 96 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro P600 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 4x increase in shading units is the primary driver behind the Quadro’s massive compute advantage. The memory architecture also differs, with the 820A using a 64-bit DDR3 interface and the P600 using a 128-bit GDDR5 interface, which quadruples the memory bus width and provides vastly more bandwidth.

These architectural differences manifest in raw throughput numbers. The 820A achieves a pixel rate of 2.500 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 10.00 GTexel/s. The Quadro P600 achieves 24.91 GPixel/s and 37.37 GTexel/s, respectively. In terms of floating-point performance, the 820A delivers 240.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro P600 delivers 1,195.8 GFLOPS, a nearly fivefold increase. The Quadro also lists an FP16 rate of 18.68 GFLOPS (1:64), while the 820A has no FP16 data available.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a clear generational shift between the two products. The process node differs substantially: the GeForce 820A uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro P600 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung. This difference is reflected in the transistor density, which jumps from 5.0M / mm² on the 820A to 25.0M / mm² on the P600.

Clock speeds are only listed for the Quadro P600, with a base clock of 1329 MHz and a boost clock of 1557 MHz. The 820A has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The P600’s memory clock is nearly identical at 1002 MHz, but its effective speed is 4 Gbps due to the GDDR5 technology.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are major differentiators. The 820A has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The P600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.13 GB/s bandwidth, a fourfold increase in both bus width and bandwidth.

The power and physical characteristics also differ. The 820A has a TDP of 15 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The P600 has a 40 W TDP, is a single-slot card, and also has no power connectors, though it suggests a 200 W power supply. The bus interface differs as well: the 820A uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the P600 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs are another point of divergence. The 820A’s outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The P600 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups. The P600 also has physical dimensions listed: 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the 820A has no dimensions listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is limited to a single benchmark, but it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P600 scores 11,181 against the GeForce 820A’s 2,983. The delta percentage is -73.3%, indicating that the 820A is 73.3% slower than the P600 in this test. This is the only direct comparison available, and it thoroughly establishes the Quadro’s dominance.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the Quadro P600, the data shows consistent performance across multiple APIs. Its Passmark G3D score is 3,317, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 1,415. In DirectX tests, it scores 56 in DirectX 9, 24 in DirectX 11, and 14 in both DirectX 10 and DirectX 12. The 2D graphics score is 529. The Geekbench Vulkan score is 9,755, which is lower than its OpenCL score but still substantial.

For the GeForce 820A, only the single Geekbench OpenCL score of 2,983 is available. This lack of additional benchmark data is itself informative, the 820A is an older, lower-tier product that likely did not receive extensive testing across modern APIs. Its average benchmark score of 2,983 is nearly identical to its single OpenCL score, reinforcing that this is its primary performance metric.

The nearest rival data for each GPU provides context. For the 820A, its closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 860M (0.5% difference), followed by the GTX 750 Ti (1% difference), the Quadro P600 itself (2.1% difference), and the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2.4% difference). This clustering shows that the 820A’s average score is surrounded by a range of GPUs from different eras and tiers. For the Quadro P600, its nearest rivals are the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (0.3% difference), RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF (0.4% difference), RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB (0.6% difference), and RTX 4010 (1% difference). This indicates that the P600’s average score is competitive with modern RTX-class cards, despite its much older architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports a clear division of use cases. The Quadro P600 wins in every measurable performance category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 73.3% higher, its FP32 compute is 1,195.8 GFLOPS versus 240.0 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate is 24.91 GPixel/s versus 2.500 GPixel/s. It has 4x the shading units, 4x the memory bandwidth, and double the ROPs. For any graphics-intensive workload, 3D rendering, CAD, video editing, or modern gaming at low-to-medium settings, the Quadro P600 is the clear choice.

The GeForce 820A’s only advantage lies in its power consumption. With a 15 W TDP, it draws less than half the power of the Quadro P600’s 40 W. This makes it suitable for ultra-low-power systems, particularly legacy laptops where the IGP form factor is required. Its lack of a dedicated power connector and its PCIe 2.0 interface further suggest it was designed for basic display output and light 2D acceleration, not compute tasks.

The API support also favors the Quadro P600. While both support DirectX 12, the P600 supports the 12_1 feature level, which includes more advanced rendering features than the 820A’s 11_0 level. The P600 also supports Vulkan 1.4, opening the door to modern cross-platform graphics workloads. The 820A has no Vulkan support listed, limiting it to older OpenGL and DirectX applications.

In summary, the Quadro P600 is the winner for any task that requires actual graphics processing power, modern API support, or professional display capabilities with its 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs. The GeForce 820A is only viable in scenarios where its 15 W power envelope or IGP form factor is the absolute constraint, and where the workload is limited to basic display output. The benchmark data leaves no room for ambiguity: this is a one-sided matchup in favor of the Quadro P600.