NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by architecture, process technology, and performance class. The data shows a single direct head-to-head benchmark result, but the specification sheets and cumulative benchmark scores paint a clear picture of a generational leap. The GTX 1050 is the dominant performer, but the 825M holds a specific niche as an integrated-class part with minimal power demands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the 825M scores 3,694. This represents a delta of -75.8% for the 825M, meaning the GTX 1050 is roughly four times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The magnitude of this gap is not merely incremental; it indicates a fundamental difference in processing capability that aligns with their respective hardware specifications.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the 825M’s average benchmark score is 3,694, placing it at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 740M (3,717, 0.6% ahead), the Quadro 3000M (3,718, 0.6% ahead), and the Radeon HD 6770 (3,649, 1.2% behind). This places the 825M in a tight cluster of older, low-power parts where performance differences are measured in single-digit percentages. The GTX 1050, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3,629, which is actually lower than the 825M’s average. This is a statistical anomaly driven by the inclusion of many low-score DirectX and Passmark tests in its benchmark suite.

The GTX 1050’s percentile rank of 21 is nearly identical to the 825M’s 22, but its raw scores tell a different story. In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 1050 scores 7,823; in Vulkan, it scores 8,995; and in Passmark G3D, it scores 5,028. These results dwarf the 825M’s solitary OpenCL score. The only head-to-head available, however, is the OpenCL test, where the GTX 1050’s 15,233 is a massive outlier compared to its own average, suggesting that OpenCL is a particularly favorable workload for its Pascal architecture. The data clearly shows that in any compute-heavy scenario, the GTX 1050 is in a different league entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The 825M uses the GK208 chip, based on the Kepler 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1050 uses the GP107 chip, based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink alone accounts for a massive increase in efficiency and transistor density. The 825M packs 1,020 million transistors into an 87 mm² die, yielding a density of 11.7M / mm². The GTX 1050 crams 3,300 million transistors into 132 mm², achieving 25.0M / mm²—more than double the density.

Clock speeds also reflect the architectural leap. The 825M runs at a base of 850 MHz with a boost of 941 MHz, while the GTX 1050 starts at 1,354 MHz and boosts to 1,455 MHz. This higher clock, combined with more execution units, produces a stark compute gap. The 825M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The result is a pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s for the 825M, versus 46.56 GPixel/s and 58.20 GTexel/s for the GTX 1050. FP32 performance is 722.7 GFLOPS for the 825M, while the GTX 1050 delivers 1.862 TFLOPS—more than 2.5 times the raw floating-point throughput.

Memory is another major divergence. The 825M uses 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1050 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s—nearly eight times the memory bandwidth. This is critical for modern textures and high-resolution assets. The GTX 1050 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the 825M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The 825M wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP is 33 W, compared to 75 W for the GTX 1050. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, designed for portable devices where space and heat are at a premium. The GTX 1050 is a dual-slot card requiring a 250 W suggested PSU, though it also has no external power connectors, relying on the PCIe slot. The 825M’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is soldered into laptops and uses whatever ports the manufacturer provides. The GTX 1050 offers a fixed set of outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

In terms of raw performance, the GTX 1050 wins every single benchmark where both have data. The 825M has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison; the GTX 1050 has one. Looking at the GTX 1050’s benchmark suite, it shows strength in modern APIs: Passmark DirectX 12 scores 20, DirectX 11 scores 38, and DirectX 10 scores 24, while DirectX 9 scores 83. Its Passmark G2D (2D graphics) score is 457, and GPU compute is 2,091. The 825M has no comparable scores in these tests, making the GTX 1050 the clear choice for any task involving 3D rendering, compute, or modern game APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 825M has a higher average benchmark score of 3,694, compared to the GTX 1050’s 3,629. However, this is misleading, as the GTX 1050’s average is dragged down by many low-score legacy DirectX tests, while its modern API scores are far higher.

Q: What is the performance gap in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the 825M scores 3,694. The 825M is 75.8% slower, meaning the GTX 1050 delivers over four times the OpenCL compute performance.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The 825M uses 1,024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1050 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s—a nearly 8x increase in bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs the same physical size?

A: No. The 825M is an IGP with no defined length, designed for portable devices. The GTX 1050 is a dual-slot card measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The 825M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The 825M has a TDP of 33 W, while the GTX 1050 has a TDP of 75 W. The GTX 1050 also requires a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the 825M has no such requirement.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The 825M uses the GK208 chip (Kepler 2.0) on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the GTX 1050 uses GP107 (Pascal) on a 14 nm Samsung process. Transistor count jumps from 1,020 million to 3,300 million, and die size from 87 mm² to 132 mm². Transistor density more than doubles from 11.7M / mm² to 25.0M / mm². Base clocks rise from 850 MHz to 1,354 MHz, and boost clocks from 941 MHz to 1,455 MHz.

Memory capacity doubles from 1,024 MB to 2 GB, type changes from DDR3 to GDDR5, bus width doubles from 64-bit to 128-bit, and bandwidth leaps from 14.40 GB/s to 112.1 GB/s. Execution resources grow: shading units from 384 to 640, TMUs from 32 to 40, and ROPs from 8 to 32. Pixel rate goes from 7.528 GPixel/s to 46.56 GPixel/s, texture rate from 30.11 GTexel/s to 58.20 GTexel/s, and FP32 from 722.7 GFLOPS to 1.862 TFLOPS. The GTX 1050 also has a listed FP16 rate of 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64), while the 825M has none.

Power and physical specs differ: TDP rises from 33 W to 75 W, slot width goes from IGP to dual-slot, and the bus interface from PCIe 3.0 x8 to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs change from portable-device-dependent to 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. Release dates are 2014-01-26 for the 825M and 2016-10-24 for the GTX 1050. The GTX 1050 has a launch MSRP of 109 USD. The 825M’s predecessor is the GeForce 700M and its successor is the GeForce 900M; the GTX 1050’s predecessor is GeForce 900 and its successor is GeForce 20.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 1050 is the superior GPU in every performance metric measured. Its 4x advantage in OpenCL compute, combined with higher pixel rates, texture rates, and memory bandwidth, makes it the only choice for gaming, 3D rendering, or any compute-heavy application. The 825M’s only advantages are its lower 33 W TDP and its IGP form factor, which suit it for thin, light, and power-constrained portable devices where performance is a secondary concern. The GTX 1050, with its 109 USD launch MSRP and dual-slot design, is a discrete card for users who demand playable frame rates and modern API support. The 825M belongs to an era of basic 3D acceleration; the GTX 1050 belongs to an era of capable, efficient mobile gaming. Anyone choosing between them for actual work should pick the GTX 1050 without hesitation.