NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between the NVIDIA GeForce 825M and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this single head-to-head metric, the GeForce 825M scores 3694 against the GT 735M’s 3616, producing a 2.2% delta in favor of the 825M. While a 2.2% margin is not transformative, it is consistent and measurable across the two mobile GPUs.

Contextualizing the 825M’s score through its nearest rivals clarifies its standing. The 825M’s 3694 average sits 0.6% behind the GeForce GT 740M (3717) and the Quadro 3000M (3718), while edging out the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 1.2% (3649) and trailing the GeForce GT 635M by 1.2% (3740). This places the 825M in a tightly contested band where single-digit percentage differences separate five distinct GPUs — a cluster of near-identical OpenCL performance.

The GT 735M, with its average score of 3616, lands in a similar neighborhood but with slightly different rivals. It sits 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 1050 (3629), 0.6% ahead of the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596), and 0.6% ahead of the GeForce GT 545 (3594). Against the shared rival, the AMD Radeon HD 6770, the GT 735M trails by 0.9% (3649). The GT 735M’s percentile rank of 21 versus the 825M’s rank of 22 reinforces the narrow but real performance gap.

Interpreting these deltas requires care. A 2.2% difference in Geekbench OpenCL translates to roughly 78 points — a margin that could be attributed to driver variations, thermal states, or memory configuration in real-world mobile implementations. Yet the data consistently favors the 825M, and its higher boost clock (941 MHz versus 628 MHz) provides a plausible structural explanation for the edge.

The 825M’s wins tally stands at 1, with 0 wins for the GT 735M in this head-to-head comparison. This is a lopsided result, but the sample size is minimal — only one benchmark test is included. Still, the direction of the result aligns with the clock-speed disparity between the two parts.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M scores 3616. The 825M wins by 2.2% in this single head-to-head test.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in terms of percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GeForce 825M sits at the 22nd percentile, while the GeForce GT 735M sits at the 21st percentile. Both are low-ranking parts, but the 825M holds a slight edge.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the GeForce 825M, and how do they compare?

A: The 825M’s closest competitors are the GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0.6% ahead of the 825M), the Quadro 3000M (3718, 0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.2% behind the 825M), and the GeForce GT 635M (3740, 1.2% ahead of the 825M).

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the GeForce GT 735M, and how do they compare?

A: The GT 735M’s closest competitors include the GeForce GTX 1050 (3629, 0.3% ahead of the GT 735M), the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596, 0.6% behind), the GeForce GT 545 (3594, 0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 0.9% ahead).

Q: Do both GPUs share the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both the GeForce 825M and the GeForce GT 735M feature a 64-bit memory bus with DDR3 memory running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The key memory difference is capacity: 1024 MB on the 825M versus 2 GB on the GT 735M.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the GeForce GT 735M outperforms the GeForce 825M?

A: In the head-to-head data provided, the GT 735M does not win any benchmark. The 825M wins the sole Geekbench OpenCL test, giving it a 1–0 advantage in wins.

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if modest, hierarchy: the NVIDIA GeForce 825M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M in the available benchmark, with a 2.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (3694 versus 3616). The 825M also achieves a higher percentile rank (22 versus 21), reinforcing its position as the stronger of the two parts.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the 825M is the logical choice. Its FP32 performance of 722.7 GFLOPS substantially exceeds the GT 735M’s 482.3 GFLOPS — a 49.8% advantage in theoretical compute. Similarly, the 825M’s texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s outpace the GT 735M’s 20.10 GTexel/s and 5.024 GPixel/s, respectively. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally higher clocked implementation of the same GK208 chip.

However, the GT 735M is not without its own merits. It doubles the memory capacity to 2 GB versus the 825M’s 1024 MB, which can matter for workloads that require larger frame buffers or datasets. If an application is memory-capacity-bound rather than compute-bound, the GT 735M could hold its own despite the compute deficit. That said, both GPUs share the same 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, so the extra capacity does not come with additional throughput.

The architectural similarity between the two parts is striking: both use the GK208 chip, Kepler 2.0 architecture, 28 nm process, 1,020 million transistors, and an 87 mm² die. They share identical shading units (384), TMUs (32), and ROPs (8). The differences are entirely in clock speeds and memory size. The 825M’s 850 MHz base clock and 941 MHz boost clock dwarf the GT 735M’s 575 MHz base and 628 MHz boost, explaining the compute gap.

For a user choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on whether compute performance or memory capacity matters more. Benchmark results indicate the 825M is the faster part, making it the default recommendation for general-purpose GPU tasks. The GT 735M, with its larger frame buffer, might be preferable for specific memory-hungry scenarios — but the data shows no benchmark where it wins outright.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields, despite sharing a common foundation.

Clock Speeds: The GeForce 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The GeForce GT 735M runs at 575 MHz base and 628 MHz boost. This is the most consequential difference, driving a 49.8% gap in FP32 performance (722.7 GFLOPS versus 482.3 GFLOPS).

Memory Capacity: The 825M is equipped with 1024 MB of DDR3, while the GT 735M doubles that to 2 GB. Both use a 64-bit bus and DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), resulting in identical 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Pixel Rate: The 825M achieves 7.528 GPixel/s, while the GT 735M manages 5.024 GPixel/s — a direct consequence of the clock speed difference.

Texture Rate: The 825M reaches 30.11 GTexel/s, compared to the GT 735M’s 20.10 GTexel/s.

Generation: The 825M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation, while the GT 735M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation. The 825M’s predecessor is the GeForce 700M series, and its successor is the GeForce 900M series. The GT 735M’s predecessor is the GeForce 600M series, and its successor is the GeForce 800M series.

Release Timing: The 825M was released on 2014-01-26, while the GT 735M was released on 2013-03-31. Both are marked as end-of-life.

All other specifications — including process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (1,020 million), die size (87 mm²), shading units (384), TMUs (32), ROPs (8), TDP (33 W), slot width (IGP), power connectors (None), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175) — are identical.

# Architecture Differences

The GeForce 825M and GeForce GT 735M are architecturally nearly identical, both built on the GK208 chip with Kepler 2.0 architecture. This is a 28 nm design manufactured by TSMC, containing 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.7M per mm².

The compute core configuration is exactly the same: 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their Kepler-generation design. The absence of these features means both rely on traditional rasterization and compute pipelines.

The shared architecture extends to memory subsystem design. Both GPUs use a 64-bit memory bus with DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), providing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory type and bus width are identical, meaning the only memory-related difference is capacity — 1024 MB on the 825M versus 2 GB on the GT 735M.

The critical architectural divergence is in clock speeds, which are not an architectural feature per se but a binning or implementation choice. The 825M’s base clock of 850 MHz and boost clock of 941 MHz are dramatically higher than the GT 735M’s 575 MHz base and 628 MHz boost. This translates directly into higher pixel rate (7.528 versus 5.024 GPixel/s), texture rate (30.11 versus 20.10 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (722.7 versus 482.3 GFLOPS).

Both GPUs support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Their bus interfaces are identical (PCIe 3.0 x8), and both are integrated graphics products (IGP) with no power connectors and a 33 W TDP. They also share the same display output configuration, described as "Portable Device Dependent."

In essence, the architectural comparison is a story of one chip, two clock bins. The GK208 silicon is identical, but the 825M is configured to run at substantially higher frequencies. This explains why the 825M outperforms the GT 735M in every measured compute metric, while the GT 735M offers double the memory capacity. For a user analyzing these parts, the choice comes down to whether the 49.8% FP32 advantage of the 825M outweighs the 2 GB versus 1 GB memory capacity of the GT 735M. The benchmark data, with the 825M winning the only head-to-head test, suggests the compute advantage is the more decisive factor.