GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark in the data set is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tilts toward the NVIDIA Quadro 2000. The Quadro 2000 posts a score of 3898, which is 5.5% higher than the GeForce 825M’s 3694. That 204-point gap is meaningful enough to put the two cards in different percentiles: the Quadro lands at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the 825M sits one notch lower at the 22nd.

The delta translates into a clear hierarchy among their nearest rivals. The Quadro 2000’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which scores 3883 and trails by a hair-thin 0.4%. On the other side, the Quadro 2000D scores 3930, beating the Quadro 2000 by 0.8%, and the GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, edging it out by 1.4%. The 825M, meanwhile, finds itself in a similar scrum: the GeForce GT 740M scores 3717, the Quadro 3000M 3718, and the GeForce GT 635M 3740. The only rival the 825M beats is the AMD Radeon HD 6770, which scores 3649, giving the 825M a 1.2% advantage.

The benchmark data shows a narrow but consistent edge for the Quadro 2000 across the board. A 5.5% win is not a landslide, but it is a decisive outcome in a single-metric comparison. The GeForce 825M has no benchmark victories in this comparison; the wins tally is 1 for the Quadro and 0 for the 825M. When the delta is that small, the underlying architectural choices, not raw clock speed, become the deciding factor, and those differences are substantial.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins with a score of 3898, beating the NVIDIA GeForce 825M’s 3694 by a 5.5% margin.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000 compare to its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics?

A: The Quadro 2000 scores 3898, which is just 0.4% higher than the Radeon R5 Graphics’ 3883. It is a near-tie, but the Quadro still comes out ahead.

Q: Is the GeForce 825M competitive with any of the Quadro 2000’s rivals?

A: The 825M scores 3694, which is lower than all of the Quadro 2000’s nearest rivals. The closest of those, the Quadro 2000D, scores 3930, a 6.4% gap from the 825M.

Q: What is the single biggest margin among the rival comparisons?

A: The GeForce GT 635M outscores the GeForce 825M by 1.2%, while the Quadro 2000 beats the 825M by 5.5%. The largest gap in the entire rival set is the Quadro 2000’s 5.5% lead over the 825M.

Q: Do the two GPUs share the same percentile ranking?

A: No. The Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 825M sits at the 22nd percentile, one spot lower.

Q: Does the GeForce 825M beat any GPU in its rival list?

A: Yes, it beats the AMD Radeon HD 6770. The 825M scores 3694 versus the HD 6770’s 3649, a 1.2% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations, and the gap in years shows in their internal design. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip with the Kepler 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a newer 28 nm node.

The transistor counts tell a story of design philosophy. The Quadro 2000 packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The 825M has fewer transistors overall, 1,020 million, but crams them onto a much smaller 87 mm² die, achieving a density of 11.7M per mm². That is more than double the density, a direct result of the 28 nm node’s finer geometry.

Shader configuration differs significantly. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 825M more than doubles the shader count to 384, keeps the same 32 TMUs, but halves the ROPs to 8. This gives the 825M a theoretical FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 2000 manages 480.0 GFLOPS. The 825M’s raw compute is 50.6% higher, yet it loses the benchmark, a sign that memory bandwidth and rasterization throughput matter more in the tested workload.

The Quadro 2000 counters with a far superior memory subsystem. It uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 over a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The 825M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 2.9x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro. Pixel rate follows the same pattern: the Quadro outputs 5.000 GPixel/s, while the 825M manages 7.528 GPixel/s despite fewer ROPs, thanks to higher clocks. Texture rate favors the 825M at 30.11 GTexel/s against the Quadro’s 20.00 GTexel/s.

Feature support is close but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 825M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support; the Quadro 2000 has no listed Vulkan support. The Quadro 2000 launches with a 62 W TDP and is a single-slot card with no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The 825M is an IGP-class part with a 33 W TDP and no power connectors, and it has no suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every measurable field. The Quadro 2000’s chip is the GF106, versus the 825M’s GK208. Architecture is Fermi versus Kepler 2.0. Process node is 40 nm versus 28 nm. Transistor count is 1,170 million versus 1,020 million. Die size is 238 mm² versus 87 mm². Transistor density is 4.9M / mm² versus 11.7M / mm².

Clocks are a mixed bag. The Quadro 2000 has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 650 MHz, or 2.6 Gbps effective. The 825M has a base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz, or 1800 Mbps effective. Memory type differs: GDDR5 on the Quadro, DDR3 on the 825M. Bus width is 128 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Compute resources differ in count but not in every direction. Shading units are 192 versus 384. TMUs are identical at 32 each. ROPs are 16 versus 8. Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 30.11 GTexel/s. FP32 is 480.0 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. TDP is 62 W versus 33 W. Slot width is single-slot versus IGP. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort versus portable-device dependent. The Quadro 2000 has physical dimensions of 178 mm length and 111 mm height; the 825M has none listed. The Quadro 2000 carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the 825M has no launch MSRP. The Quadro 2000’s predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla and successor is Quadro Kepler; the 825M’s predecessor is GeForce 700M and successor is GeForce 900M.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 2000 wins the only benchmark that matters in this comparison, and it does so on the strength of its memory architecture. The 41.60 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth gives it a 2.9x advantage over the 825M’s 14.40 GB/s, and that gap shows in the Geekbench OpenCL score. The Quadro 2000 is also the more configurable card for workstation use: it has dual DisplayPort outputs plus a DVI port, a single-slot form factor, and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. Its 5.5% benchmark lead over the 825M is the headline number, but the margin is built on memory bandwidth and ROP count, not raw shader throughput.

The GeForce 825M has no benchmark wins in this data set, but the specification sheet shows where it would excel in different workloads. Its 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute is 50.6% higher than the Quadro 2000’s 480.0 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s is 50.6% higher as well. The 825M’s 384 shading units, double the Quadro’s count, would favor compute-heavy tasks like physics simulation or image processing that are not bound by memory bandwidth. Its 33 W TDP is less than half the Quadro’s 62 W, making it the clear choice for thermally constrained portable designs. The 825M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro 2000 lacks, giving it an edge in modern API-driven applications.

The use-case split is straightforward. The Quadro 2000 wins on memory bandwidth, display connectivity, and the actual benchmark result. It is the better card for bandwidth-sensitive workloads and any setup requiring multiple fixed display outputs. The 825M wins on raw compute density, efficiency, and modern API support, making it the better fit for shader-heavy or Vulkan-based workloads in a low-power envelope. Neither card is current, both are end-of-life, but the data shows two different design priorities: the Quadro 2000 optimized for throughput on a wide bus, the 825M optimized for compute density on a small die.