NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce 930M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce 825M in overall benchmark performance?

A: The recorded data shows the GeForce 930M holds a clear lead. Its average benchmark score is 4388, while the GeForce 825M averages 3694. In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the 930M scores 5046 versus 3694 for the 825M, a 36.6% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The GeForce 825M operates at a higher clock frequency. Its base clock is 850 MHz and its boost clock reaches 941 MHz. The GeForce 930M runs at a constant 549 MHz for both base and boost.

Q: Do these two GPUs share the same memory bus width?

A: Yes. Both the GeForce 930M and the GeForce 825M use a 64-bit memory bus with DDR3 memory. However, they differ in memory capacity and bandwidth, with the 930M offering 2 GB at 12.80 GB/s and the 825M offering 1024 MB at 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GeForce 825M has a significantly higher pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s. The GeForce 930M only achieves 4.392 GPixel/s. This indicates the 825M is more efficient at rasterizing pixels.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The GeForce 930M is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108S chip, while the GeForce 825M uses the older Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the difference in their benchmark percentiles?

A: The GeForce 930M sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GeForce 825M falls to the 22nd percentile. This places the 930M ahead of a larger share of the overall GPU population.

Architecture Differences

The two mobile GPUs come from different architectural generations. The GeForce 930M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, while the GeForce 825M relies on the older Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip. Both chips are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but their internal designs diverge noticeably.

Transistor counts are identical at 1,020 million, yet the die sizes differ. The GM108S die measures 77 mm², while the GK208 die is larger at 87 mm². This results in a higher transistor density for the 930M: 13.2M per mm² versus 11.7M per mm² for the 825M. The Maxwell chip packs the same number of transistors into a smaller area.

The shading unit count is the same on both GPUs at 384. However, the texture mapping units (TMUs) differ. The GeForce 930M has 24 TMUs, while the GeForce 825M has 32 TMUs. This gives the 825M a higher texture fill rate. Both GPUs feature 8 raster operation units (ROPs).

Clock behavior also marks a key architectural difference. The GeForce 930M runs at a fixed 549 MHz for both base and boost clocks, with no dynamic range. The GeForce 825M starts at 850 MHz base and boosts to 941 MHz. This clock advantage is substantial for the older chip.

Memory subsystems differ as well. The 930M pairs its 64-bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3 and a bandwidth of 12.80 GB/s. The 825M also uses a 64-bit bus but with only 1024 MB of DDR3, and its memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having less capacity, the 825M offers higher raw memory bandwidth.

API support shows a split. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GeForce 825M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. This gives the newer Maxwell part a more modern graphics API feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to distinct strengths for each GPU. The GeForce 930M wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 36.6% margin. This suggests the Maxwell architecture provides a significant compute advantage in OpenCL workloads, likely due to architectural efficiency improvements.

The GeForce 825M, despite losing the overall benchmark comparison, holds advantages in several raw throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s is 71% higher than the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s. This means the 825M can fill the screen with rendered pixels faster, which could benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks.

The 825M also excels in texture processing. With 32 TMUs and a texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s, it far exceeds the 930M's 24 TMUs and 13.18 GTexel/s. The 825M delivers more than double the texture fill rate, which can be relevant for scenes with heavy texture mapping.

The 825M also offers higher memory bandwidth at 14.40 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s for the 930M. This could help in memory-bound scenarios, despite the 930M having double the VRAM capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB).

For users prioritizing general compute performance and modern API support, the GeForce 930M is the clear winner. For tasks that rely on pixel throughput, texture rate, or memory bandwidth, the GeForce 825M holds the edge. The 930M's higher percentile ranking (26th vs 22nd) and its higher average score (4388 vs 3694) indicate it is the more capable overall part.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are as follows:

• Chip: GeForce 930M uses GM108S; GeForce 825M uses GK208
• Architecture: GeForce 930M is Maxwell; GeForce 825M is Kepler 2.0
• Generation: GeForce 930M belongs to GeForce 900M; GeForce 825M belongs to GeForce 800M
• Die Size: GeForce 930M measures 77 mm²; GeForce 825M measures 87 mm²
• Transistor Density: GeForce 930M has 13.2M / mm²; GeForce 825M has 11.7M / mm²
• Base Clock: GeForce 930M runs at 549 MHz; GeForce 825M runs at 850 MHz
• Boost Clock: GeForce 930M stays at 549 MHz; GeForce 825M boosts to 941 MHz
• Memory Size: GeForce 930M has 2 GB; GeForce 825M has 1024 MB
• Memory Clock: GeForce 930M runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective); GeForce 825M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Bandwidth: GeForce 930M provides 12.80 GB/s; GeForce 825M provides 14.40 GB/s
• TMUs: GeForce 930M has 24; GeForce 825M has 32
• Pixel Rate: GeForce 930M achieves 4.392 GPixel/s; GeForce 825M achieves 7.528 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: GeForce 930M reaches 13.18 GTexel/s; GeForce 825M reaches 30.11 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: GeForce 930M delivers 421.6 GFLOPS; GeForce 825M delivers 722.7 GFLOPS
• Vulkan Support: GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4; GeForce 825M supports Vulkan 1.2.175
• Release Date: GeForce 930M launched March 12, 2015; GeForce 825M launched January 26, 2014
• Predecessor: GeForce 930M succeeded GeForce 800M; GeForce 825M succeeded GeForce 700M
• Successor: GeForce 930M was succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile; GeForce 825M was succeeded by GeForce 900M

Identical specifications include the 28 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 1,020 million transistors, 384 shading units, 8 ROPs, 64-bit memory bus, DDR3 memory type, 33 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, portable device dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0), and OpenGL 4.6 support. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694 points. This gives the 930M a 36.6% advantage. This is a substantial margin in a compute-focused workload, indicating that the Maxwell architecture's efficiency improvements translate into real performance gains despite the 930M's lower clock speeds.

The 930M's victory in OpenCL is notable given its significant clock disadvantage. The 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, while the 930M is locked at 549 MHz. The 930M compensates through architectural efficiency, achieving a 36.6% higher score with a 41% lower boost clock. The FP32 figures support this: the 825M is rated at 722.7 GFLOPS, but the 930M still wins the OpenCL test with only 421.6 GFLOPS of theoretical peak.

The 930M also wins on average benchmark score, posting 4388 points versus 3694 for the 825M. This places the 930M at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, ahead of the 825M's 22nd percentile. The 930M's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411, 0.5% faster), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, 0.7% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, 1.2% slower), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 2.2% slower). The 825M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0.6% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718, 0.6% faster), the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.2% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (3740, 1.2% faster).

The data indicates that the GeForce 930M is the superior performer in the only directly comparable benchmark. While the 825M holds theoretical advantages in pixel rate, texture rate, and memory bandwidth, the 930M's architectural improvements deliver better real-world compute results. The 930M wins the head-to-head matchup 1 to 0, and its higher average score and percentile ranking reinforce this conclusion. For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the benchmark evidence favors the GeForce 930M for general compute workloads.