NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M and NVIDIA GeForce 825M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from NVIDIA, but they target different segments of the laptop market. The GT 745M is a Kepler-based part from the GeForce 700M generation, while the 825M arrives a generation later with Kepler 2.0 architecture. Despite the newer naming, the 825M takes a different approach: it pairs a higher clocked GPU core with a much narrower memory interface and slower DDR3 memory. The benchmark data shows the 825M edges ahead in the single available head-to-head test, but the two cards are so close in overall performance that the deciding factors come down to memory configuration and feature specifics rather than raw compute muscle.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M wins the only direct benchmark comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 825M scores 3694 against the GT 745M's 3580, a 3.1% advantage. That is a narrow margin, but it is consistent across the broader picture: the 825M's average benchmark score of 3694 places it at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 745M's average of 3953 puts it at the 23rd percentile. Interestingly, the GT 745M actually has a higher average score across all its benchmark runs (3953 vs 3694), because the GT 745M also has Geekbench Metal (2777) and Vulkan (5502) results that drag its average up, whereas the 825M only has the one OpenCL result.

The GT 745M's wins are in memory bandwidth and capacity. It has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 825M has half the VRAM (1024 MB), uses DDR3, and runs on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s — a 4.4x disadvantage in memory throughput. For texture-heavy workloads or higher resolution settings, the GT 745M's bandwidth advantage is decisive. The 825M counters with raw compute: its FP32 throughput is 722.7 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS for the GT 745M, a 71% advantage, and its pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s beats the GT 745M's 4.392 GPixel/s. The 825M also has a higher texture rate at 30.11 GTexel/s versus 17.57 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M. Its FP32 throughput is 722.7 GFLOPS, which is 71% higher than the GT 745M's 421.6 GFLOPS. The 825M also has higher pixel and texture rates (7.528 GPixel/s and 30.11 GTexel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s and 17.57 GTexel/s).

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M by a wide margin. It has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the 825M has only 14.40 GB/s from 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. That is a 4.4x difference in favor of the GT 745M.

Q: How do they compare in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The 825M wins with a score of 3694 versus 3580 for the GT 745M, a 3.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available between these two.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The 825M has a 33 W TDP, which is lower than the GT 745M's 45 W TDP. Both are integrated into the motherboard (IGP slot width), but the 825M draws 12 W less under load.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: They are identical. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means they are equally capable in modern API-based workloads.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The GT 745M was released in early 2013 (March 31, 2013) and the 825M in late January 2014. The 825M's predecessor is the GeForce 700M series, and its successor is the GeForce 900M series.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the 825M takes it. The 825M scores 3694, beating the GT 745M's 3580 by 3.1%. That result is notable because the 825M achieves it despite having a dramatically weaker memory subsystem. The 825M's memory bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s is less than a quarter of the GT 745M's 64.00 GB/s, yet the 825M still comes out ahead in this compute-oriented test. The explanation lies in the GPU core clocks and architecture. The 825M has a base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz, while the GT 745M's clocks are not listed in the data. The 825M's Kepler 2.0 architecture, with 384 shading units and 32 TMUs, produces 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput — 71% more than the GT 745M's 421.6 GFLOPS from the same 384 shading units and 32 TMUs. The higher clocks per unit are the difference.

The GT 745M's strengths do not show up in synthetic compute benchmarks but would appear in memory-bound scenarios. Consider the pixel rate: the GT 745M achieves 4.392 GPixel/s versus the 825M's 7.528 GPixel/s. Wait — that number favors the 825M, not the GT 745M. The 825M has only 8 ROPs compared to 16 ROPs on the GT 745M, but its higher clock speed (941 MHz boost vs unknown for the GT 745M) makes up for it. The real GT 745M advantage is bandwidth, which the Geekbench OpenCL test does not heavily stress. In real-world gaming at higher resolutions or with texture-heavy assets, the GT 745M's 4.4x bandwidth lead would likely flip the result. But based on the available benchmark data, the 825M wins the only head-to-head test.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every key specification. The GT 745M uses the GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the 825M uses the GK208 chip with 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the 825M (11.7M per mm² vs 10.8M per mm²), but both are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process.

Memory is the biggest differentiator. The GT 745M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock also differs: the GT 745M runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 825M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Shading units and TMUs are identical at 384 and 32, respectively, but ROPs differ: 16 on the GT 745M versus 8 on the 825M.

Clock speeds are only listed for the 825M (850 MHz base, 941 MHz boost); the GT 745M's base and boost clocks are not provided in the data. The GT 745M has a 45 W TDP, while the 825M is rated at 33 W. The bus interface differs too: the GT 745M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 825M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The 825M has no power connectors listed, while the GT 745M's power connector is not specified. Both have display outputs listed as "Portable Device Dependent" and are IGP slot width.

Architecture Differences

The GT 745M is built on the original Kepler architecture, while the 825M uses Kepler 2.0 — the second revision of NVIDIA's Kepler design. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the chips are different physical designs. The GT 745M's GK107 die is larger at 118 mm² and packs 1,270 million transistors, while the 825M's GK208 die is smaller at 87 mm² with 1,020 million transistors. The GK208 achieves higher transistor density (11.7M/mm² vs 10.8M/mm²) and, despite fewer transistors, manages to deliver higher compute throughput through higher clock speeds.

The 825M's Kepler 2.0 architecture appears tuned for compute efficiency rather than memory throughput. It has the same 384 shading units and 32 TMUs as the GT 745M, but halves the ROP count to 8. The memory controller is also halved to 64-bit. This suggests NVIDIA designed the 825M as a low-power compute part (33 W TDP) that trades memory bandwidth for higher clock speeds and lower power draw. The GT 745M, with its 128-bit GDDR5 memory and 45 W TDP, is the more balanced part for general graphics work. Both support the same API set — DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175 — so there is no architectural difference in feature support. The 825M is a generation newer (GeForce 800M vs GeForce 700M) and its predecessor is the GeForce 700M series, which is the GT 745M's generation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data tells a clear story: the 825M is the faster compute part, winning the only head-to-head test by 3.1% in Geekbench OpenCL. Its 71% higher FP32 throughput and higher pixel/texture rates make it the better choice for compute-heavy workloads. However, the GT 745M's massive memory bandwidth advantage (64.00 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) and double the VRAM (2 GB vs 1024 MB) mean it will handle memory-intensive tasks — like high-resolution textures or multi-tasking — more smoothly. The GT 745M also has a higher average benchmark score (3953 vs 3694) across all its tests, though that includes Vulkan and Metal results the 825M lacks.

For a laptop buyer, the choice depends on workload. If the priority is raw compute in OpenCL applications, the 825M wins. If the priority is memory bandwidth, VRAM capacity, or gaming at higher settings, the GT 745M's GDDR5 and 128-bit bus are superior. The 825M is also more power-efficient at 33 W versus 45 W, which matters for battery life. Both are end-of-life and close in overall performance — the 825M sits at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, the GT 745M at the 23rd. Neither is a performance powerhouse. The 825M is the better compute-oriented choice; the GT 745M is the better memory-oriented choice. Given that the 825M wins the head-to-head and uses less power, it edges out the GT 745M for most users — unless the workload is specifically bandwidth-bound, where the GT 745M's 4.4x bandwidth lead is impossible to ignore.