NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce 830M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA GeForce 825M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the same GeForce 800M generation, both built on a 28 nm TSMC process. While they share the same 33 W TDP and IGP slot width, the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy between the two, driven by fundamentally different internal architectures and clock strategies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisively in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M. The 830M scores 4324 points, while the 825M scores 3694 points. This translates to a 17.1% delta percentage, with the 830M winning the only head-to-head contest. In absolute terms, the 830M's score is 630 points higher, which is a substantial margin for two GPUs that share the same memory bandwidth and power envelope.

The 830M's victory is even more impressive when considering the raw compute specifications. The 825M actually has more shading units (384 vs. 256) and more texture mapping units (32 vs. 16), yet it still loses decisively. The 830M compensates for its fewer cores with a significantly higher clock speed: its base clock is 1082 MHz and boost clock is 1150 MHz, compared to the 825M's 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with the architectural efficiency of Maxwell, allows the 830M to outperform its Kepler-based sibling despite the apparent hardware disadvantage.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this narrative. The 830M has an average benchmark score of 3957, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The 825M's average score is 3694, putting it in the 22nd percentile. While both are low-end parts historically, the 830M sits meaningfully above the 825M in the overall distribution.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The 830M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 with an average score of 3956, representing a 0% delta — essentially a statistical tie. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 3964, putting it 0.2% ahead of the 830M, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, a 0.1% deficit. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is 0.5% ahead at 3977. For the 825M, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M at 3717, which is 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M at 3718, also 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 6770 trails the 825M by 1.2% with a score of 3649.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has a higher average benchmark score of 3957, compared to the 825M's 3694. This represents a 17.1% difference in the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: Does the 825M have any advantage in raw hardware specifications?

A: Yes, the 825M has more shading units (384 vs. 256) and more texture mapping units (32 vs. 16). However, this does not translate into better performance because the 830M operates at much higher clock speeds (1082 MHz base vs. 850 MHz base).

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The 830M is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (0% delta) and is within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2. The 825M trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M by 0.6% each, but leads the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 1.2%.

Q: What is the memory configuration for both GPUs?

A: Both GPUs use DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus width and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The key difference is capacity: the 830M has 2 GB, while the 825M has 1024 MB.

Q: Which GPU has a better percentile ranking?

A: The 830M ranks in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the 825M ranks in the 22nd percentile. This is consistent with the 830M's higher average benchmark score.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same architecture?

A: No. The 830M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip, while the 825M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the superior GPU. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 17.1%, has a higher average benchmark score (3957 vs. 3694), and occupies a higher percentile ranking (24th vs. 22nd). The 830M achieves this despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, which highlights the efficiency of its Maxwell architecture and its substantial clock speed advantage.

The 825M's only potential appeal is its larger number of compute units on paper, but the benchmark results show that this does not translate to real-world performance. The 825M's 384 shading units are hamstrung by a base clock of 850 MHz, while the 830M's 256 shading units run at 1082 MHz base. The result is that the 830M delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s, whereas the 825M manages 722.7 GFLOPS but only 7.528 GPixel/s — showing that the 830M's rasterization throughput is actually higher.

For a user choosing between these two mobile GPUs, the 830M is the clear choice based on every metric that matters. It offers better compute performance, better pixel throughput, and a higher benchmark score, all within the same 33 W TDP. The 825M's higher texture rate (30.11 GTexel/s vs. 18.40 GTexel/s) is its only numeric advantage, but this does not compensate for the overall performance deficit. The 830M also offers double the memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1024 MB), which can matter for texture-heavy workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specification fields. The 830M uses the GM108 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, while the 825M uses the GK208 chip based on Kepler 2.0. This architectural difference leads to different die sizes: the 830M has a 77 mm² die with a transistor density of 13.2M / mm², whereas the 825M has a larger 87 mm² die with a lower density of 11.7M / mm². Both have 1,020 million transistors.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The 830M runs at 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost, while the 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The memory clock is identical at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, and both use DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. However, memory capacity differs: the 830M has 2 GB, while the 825M has 1024 MB.

Compute unit counts diverge: the 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the 825M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The resulting throughput figures favor different aspects: the 830M has a higher pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs. 7.528 GPixel/s), while the 825M has a higher texture rate (30.11 GTexel/s vs. 18.40 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 compute (722.7 GFLOPS vs. 588.8 GFLOPS).

The supported APIs also differ slightly. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the 825M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The release dates differ as well: the 825M launched earlier on 2014-01-26, while the 830M followed on 2014-03-11.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide between these two GPUs is Maxwell versus Kepler 2.0. The 830M's Maxwell architecture is designed for higher efficiency per clock, which explains how it can deliver superior benchmark performance despite fewer compute units. The 825M's Kepler 2.0 architecture relies on a wider configuration of 384 shading units and 32 TMUs, but at lower clock speeds.

The die characteristics reflect this design philosophy. The 830M's 77 mm² die achieves a transistor density of 13.2M / mm², while the 825M's 87 mm² die has a density of 11.7M / mm². Both chips contain 1,020 million transistors, but the Maxwell design packs them more tightly, suggesting a more optimized layout.

The clock strategy is the most visible architectural difference. The 830M's 1082 MHz base clock is 27% higher than the 825M's 850 MHz base clock, and its 1150 MHz boost clock is 22% higher than the 825M's 941 MHz boost. This allows the 830M to extract more performance from each of its shading units, resulting in a higher pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s for the 825M.

The 825M does retain advantages in texture throughput and raw FP32 compute. Its 30.11 GTexel/s texture rate is 64% higher than the 830M's 18.40 GTexel/s, and its 722.7 GFLOPS FP32 is 23% higher. However, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark — which reflects real compute workloads — shows the 830M winning by 17.1%, indicating that the Maxwell architecture's efficiency outweighs the Kepler part's raw unit count.

The Vulkan API support also differs, with the 830M supporting Vulkan 1.4 compared to the 825M's Vulkan 1.2.175. This suggests better forward compatibility for the 830M in modern graphics APIs, although both are end-of-life products. The memory capacity difference (2 GB vs. 1024 MB) is not purely architectural but is a practical consideration, as larger frame buffers can reduce texture swapping in memory-constrained scenarios.