NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and NVIDIA GeForce 825M compare in raw benchmark performance?

A: In the recorded Geekbench OpenCL measurement, the GTX 460M scores 4282 against the GeForce 825M’s 3694. That gives the GTX 460M a 15.9% lead in this specific workload. The 825M trails by that margin, and the GTX 460M takes the only recorded head-to-head win between the two.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 460M is far ahead here. It uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, managing only 14.40 GB/s. That is a massive difference in memory throughput, which heavily favors the older Fermi part.

Q: Does the GeForce 825M outperform the GTX 460M in any measurable way?

A: In the recorded database results, the GeForce 825M does not win any head-to-head benchmark. However, the 825M has a higher clock configuration, with a base clock of 850 MHz and boost up to 941 MHz, while the GTX 460M has no recorded base or boost clock. The 825M also draws less power at 33 W versus 50 W, so it wins on efficiency and clock speed, but not on benchmark scores.

Q: Which GPU is built on a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The GeForce 825M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 460M uses 40 nm. The newer 28 nm node allows the 825M to pack 11.7M transistors per mm² versus 4.9M per mm² on the 40 nm chip. The 825M’s die is also much smaller at 87 mm² compared to 238 mm².

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes. Both report DirectX 12 (11_0) support. They also both support OpenGL 4.6. The 825M additionally lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 460M has no Vulkan entry in the database.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The GTX 460M was released on September 2, 2010, and the GeForce 825M followed on January 26, 2014. The GTX 460M belongs to the GeForce 400M generation, while the 825M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and generations. The GTX 460M is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, part of the GeForce 400M family. The GeForce 825M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip, part of the GeForce 800M family. This architectural gap explains many of the performance and feature differences seen in the data.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The Fermi chip is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the Kepler chip uses a 28 nm process. The GTX 460M integrates 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The GeForce 825M packs 1,020 million transistors onto a much smaller 87 mm² die, achieving 11.7M per mm². The newer process gives the 825M more than twice the transistor density.

Shader configuration is another major split. The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, while the GeForce 825M has 384 shading units, exactly double. Both have 32 texture mapping units, but the ROP count swings the other way: the GTX 460M has 24 ROPs versus just 8 on the 825M. This means the Fermi part has far more pixel output capability per clock, while the Kepler part has more shader throughput.

Clock behavior also differs. The GeForce 825M has a recorded base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz. The GTX 460M has no base or boost clock listed in the database, so its operating frequencies are not directly comparable. Memory clocks differ too, with the GTX 460M running at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective speed, while the 825M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Memory architecture is one of the starkest contrasts. The GTX 460M uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 825M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. The Fermi card has a 128-bit wider bus and over four times the memory bandwidth. The Kepler part has more shading units but far less memory throughput, which likely bottlenecks its compute potential.

Feature support differs in the API stack. Both GPUs report DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GeForce 825M adds Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 460M has no Vulkan support recorded. This gives the newer Kepler chip a modern API advantage despite its lower benchmark score.

Power and form factor also distinguish the pair. The GTX 460M is rated at 50 W and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the GeForce 825M is rated at 33 W and is listed as an IGP. Both use PCIe, but the GTX 460M runs PCIe 2.0 x16 while the 825M runs PCIe 3.0 x8. Neither requires power connectors, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 460M scores 4282, and the GeForce 825M scores 3694. The GTX 460M wins by 15.9%. That is a decisive margin for a GPU released roughly three and a half years earlier.

To frame that score in context, the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295 with a delta of -0.3%, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268 with a delta of 0.3%, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 with a delta of 1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 scores 4335 with a delta of -1.2%. The GTX 460M is essentially at parity with this group, landing within 1.2% of all four.

The GeForce 825M sits at the 22nd percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are also close: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3717 with a delta of -0.6%, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718 with a delta of -0.6%, the AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649 with a delta of 1.2%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740 with a delta of -1.2%. The 825M is within 1.2% of all four of those parts as well.

The gap between the two contestant GPUs, 588 points, is larger than the spread within either GPU’s nearest-rival cluster. The GTX 460M’s score is 15.9% higher, which in practical terms means the Fermi-based mobile chip handles OpenCL compute workloads with noticeably more throughput. The 825M’s higher shader count and boost clock do not translate into a higher Geekbench score, likely because the 825M’s narrow 64-bit memory bus and DDR3 memory cap its effective compute throughput.

The recorded data shows one win for the GTX 460M and zero for the GeForce 825M. There are no other benchmark entries for either GPU in the head-to-head set, so conclusions beyond OpenCL are limited. Still, the single data point is consistent with the memory bandwidth advantage: the GTX 460M has 60.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 4.17x difference that the shader-count advantage of the 825M cannot overcome in this test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler 2.0 |

| Chip | GF106 | GK208 |

| Generation | GeForce 400M | GeForce 800M |

| Process node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,020 million |

| Die size | 238 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor density | 4.9M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not recorded | 850 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not recorded | 941 MHz |

| Memory clock | 625 MHz, 2.5 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory size | 1536 MB | 1024 MB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory bus width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 60.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading units | 192 | 384 |

| ROPs | 24 | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 5.400 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 518.4 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 33 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.2.175 |

| Release date | 2010-09-02 | 2014-01-26 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 300M | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | GeForce 500M | GeForce 900M |

Both GPUs share a few fields: NVIDIA as manufacturer, TSMC as foundry, no RT or tensor cores, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, portable-device-dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and end-of-life production status. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 460M wins the only recorded benchmark, and it wins on several hardware fronts. Its memory subsystem is far superior: 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus versus 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. That yields 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth, more than four times the 825M’s 14.40 GB/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, which includes most OpenCL compute tasks, the GTX 460M has a structural advantage that the data confirms with a 15.9% higher score.

The GTX 460M also has triple the ROP count, 24 versus 8. This gives it a higher pixel-output capability relative to its clock, which matters for fill-rate-bound rendering. Its pixel rate of 5.400 GPixel/s is lower than the 825M’s 7.528 GPixel/s on paper, but the ROP count difference suggests the Fermi part can sustain more complex pixel operations. The GTX 460M’s PCIe 2.0 x16 interface also offers a wider link compared to the 825M’s PCIe 3.0 x8, though the practical impact depends on the host platform.

The GeForce 825M wins on efficiency and modern features. It draws only 33 W versus 50 W, a 34% reduction in power draw. It is built on a smaller 28 nm process with a much smaller die, 87 mm² versus 238 mm², making it cheaper to integrate into compact systems. It has double the shading units, 384 versus 192, and higher raw FP32 throughput at 722.7 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS. It also has higher texture and pixel rates: 30.11 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, and 7.528 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s.

The 825M also has a recorded boost clock of 941 MHz, which allows it to scale performance dynamically. It supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 460M has no Vulkan support in the database. For software that leverages Vulkan, the 825M is the only viable option of the two. Its PCIe 3.0 interface, even at x8, provides more per-lane bandwidth than PCIe 2.0.

For use-case planning, the split is clear. If the workload is OpenCL compute or any task that depends on memory bandwidth, the GTX 460M is the stronger part. Its Geekbench score of 4282 versus 3694 reflects that. If the workload is power-constrained, requires Vulkan, or benefits from higher shader throughput and clock speeds, the GeForce 825M is the better fit despite losing the benchmark. The 825M’s lower TDP makes it suitable for thinner, cooler-running laptops, while the GTX 460M’s MXM form factor and higher power draw point to larger, more performance-oriented notebooks.

The data shows a generational tradeoff rather than a clean winner. The older Fermi GPU wins the measured performance test, but the newer Kepler GPU brings architectural refinements, better efficiency, and a modern API feature set. In the database’s percentile rankings, the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile and the 825M at the 22nd, placing both near the lower-middle range of all GPUs. The 588-point gap between them is meaningful, but both parts are clearly entry-level by current standards.