NVIDIA GeForce 820A vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs in this comparison occupy the same percentile ranking (19th) among all GPUs, yet they achieve this through radically different benchmark methodologies and performance profiles. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 2,983, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,910. Direct head-to-head benchmark results are not available, so the comparison relies on each card’s nearest rivals to contextualize their standing.

The GeForce 820A edges out the GeForce GTX 860M by 0.5%, with the GTX 860M averaging 2,967. It also leads the GeForce GTX 750 Ti by 1% (2,953) and the Quadro P600 by 2.1% (2,923). Notably, the 820A is 2.4% ahead of the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 2,913 in this same OpenCL test. This is a surprising result for a Fermi-based part from 2014, but it reflects the specific workload characteristics of Geekbench OpenCL rather than raw gaming capability.

The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF shows a tighter clustering among its rivals in the Steel Nomad DX12 test. It trails the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB by 0.1% (2,913 versus 2,910) and the Quadro P600 by 0.4% (2,923). It leads the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB by 0.1% (2,907) and the GeForce RTX 4010 by 0.6% (2,893). The deltaPct values here are all within a single percentage point, indicating that the RTX PRO 4000 sits in a very competitive performance band for this particular DirectX 12 workload.

The biggest win for the 820A is its 2.4% margin over the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB in OpenCL. That is the largest deltaPct across both cards’ rival sets. The RTX PRO 4000’s largest margin is a modest 0.6% over the RTX 4010. Neither card demonstrates a dominant lead over its nearest competitors; both are positioned as mid-pack performers within their respective benchmark contexts. The data suggests that the 820A’s OpenCL score is comparatively stronger relative to its rivals than the RTX PRO 4000’s Steel Nomad score, but the different test suites make direct cross-card comparison impossible.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce 820A has an average benchmark score of 2,983, which is 73 points higher than the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF’s 2,910. However, these scores come from different benchmark suites (Geekbench OpenCL versus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12), so they are not directly comparable.

Q: How does the RTX PRO 4000 compare to the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the RTX PRO 4000 scores 2,910, which is 0.1% lower than the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB’s 2,913. The delta is negligible, placing the two cards in the same performance tier for this workload.

Q: What is the GeForce 820A’s closest rival based on benchmark data?

A: The GeForce GTX 860M is the closest rival, with an average score of 2,967. The 820A leads it by 0.5%. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti follows closely at 2,953, with the 820A ahead by 1%.

Q: Does the RTX PRO 4000 support newer graphics APIs than the 820A?

A: Yes. The RTX PRO 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX PRO 4000 has a transistor density of 120.6M per mm², compared to the 820A’s 5.0M per mm². This is a 24-fold difference, reflecting the much newer 5 nm process node versus the 28 nm node.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the two cards were directly compared?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The 820A has only a Geekbench OpenCL result, while the RTX PRO 4000 has only a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The GeForce 820A uses the GF117 chip, built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, which dates to the GeForce 800A generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die. The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF uses the GB203 chip, built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Blackwell PRO W (x000) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: 5.0M per mm² versus 120.6M per mm².

The 820A features 96 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX PRO 4000, by contrast, has 8,960 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. It includes 70 ray tracing cores and 280 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the 820A cannot perform. The FP32 compute throughput tells the same story: the 820A delivers 240.0 GFLOPS, while the RTX PRO 4000 delivers 24.05 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 100x. The RTX PRO 4000 also offers FP16 at 24.05 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the 820A lists no FP16 capability.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The 820A uses 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX PRO 4000 uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The pixel rate for the 820A is 2.500 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 10.00 GTexel/s. The RTX PRO 4000 achieves 128.8 GPixel/s and 375.8 GTexel/s, respectively. The 820A’s memory clock is listed as 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the RTX PRO 4000 runs at 1125 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The 820A also lacks a listed base or boost clock, whereas the RTX PRO 4000 has a base clock of 405 MHz and a boost clock of 1342 MHz.

The API support reflects the architectural evolution. The 820A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a feature-limited implementation. The RTX PRO 4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The 820A has no Vulkan support listed, while the RTX PRO 4000 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The 820A uses a 64-bit memory bus, while the RTX PRO 4000 uses a 192-bit bus. Memory capacity differs by 23 GB: 1,024 MB versus 24 GB. Memory type is DDR3 versus GDDR7. Bandwidth is 16.02 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. The 820A has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the RTX PRO 4000 has 8,960 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX PRO 4000 adds 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores, which the 820A lacks entirely.

The process node is 28 nm versus 5 nm. Transistor count is 585 million versus 45,600 million. Die size is 116 mm² versus 378 mm². The 820A’s FP32 throughput is 240.0 GFLOPS; the RTX PRO 4000’s is 24.05 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 2.500 GPixel/s versus 128.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 10.00 GTexel/s versus 375.8 GTexel/s. The 820A has no listed base or boost clock; the RTX PRO 4000 has a 405 MHz base and 1342 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Power and physical specifications also differ. The 820A has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The RTX PRO 4000 has a TDP of 70 W, is a dual-slot card, and also has no power connectors, though it suggests a 250 W PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the 820A versus PCIe 5.0 x8 for the RTX PRO 4000. Display outputs are "portable device dependent" for the 820A, while the RTX PRO 4000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1b. The RTX PRO 4000 has listed dimensions of 167 mm length, 69 mm height, and 40 mm width; the 820A has no dimensions listed. The 820A is end-of-life and was released in 2014, while the RTX PRO 4000 is active and was released in 2025.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 820A wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, scoring 2,983, which places it ahead of all four of its nearest rivals. Its 2.4% margin over the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB is the largest relative win in either card’s rival set. This suggests that for OpenCL compute workloads, the 820A is a surprisingly competitive part despite its age and low-end positioning. It also has a significantly lower TDP at 15 W versus 70 W, making it suitable for power-constrained, integrated designs where the RTX PRO 4000’s dual-slot, 70 W footprint would not fit. The 820A’s IGP slot width and lack of power connectors also make it a candidate for portable or embedded devices, though its display outputs are device-dependent.

The RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF wins in every architectural and specification category that matters for modern workloads. It delivers 24.05 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 70 ray tracing cores, and 280 tensor cores, enabling workloads that the 820A cannot handle at all. Its 24 GB of GDDR7 memory with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides 27x the memory capacity and roughly 27x the bandwidth of the 820A. The 5 nm process node and Blackwell 2.0 architecture support DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the 820A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. The RTX PRO 4000 also offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, making it suitable for multi-display professional workstations.

For gaming and graphics-intensive applications, the RTX PRO 4000’s 128.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and 375.8 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the 820A’s 2.500 GPixel/s and 10.00 GTexel/s. The RTX PRO 4000’s closest rival in the Steel Nomad DX12 test, the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB, is only 0.1% ahead, indicating that the RTX PRO 4000 is competitive with mainstream gaming GPUs despite its professional branding. The 820A, by contrast, has no ray tracing or tensor core support, making it unsuitable for modern games that leverage these features.

In summary, the 820A wins on benchmark score in its specific OpenCL test and on power efficiency (15 W versus 70 W), but it lacks the architectural features, memory capacity, and compute throughput required for contemporary workloads. The RTX PRO 4000 wins on every performance metric except the raw OpenCL score, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad result places it in a competitive tier with much newer mainstream cards. The choice between them depends entirely on the workload: the 820A for legacy OpenCL compute in low-power embedded systems, the RTX PRO 4000 for modern professional graphics, AI inference, and ray-traced rendering.