NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the GeForce 825M manages 3694, giving the Quadro a 6.4% advantage in this compute-oriented workload. That margin is not enormous, but it is consistent across the board when examining the rivals surrounding each card.

The Quadro 2000D’s score of 3930 places it just above the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, which averages 3919, a difference of only 0.3%. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, -0.6% relative to the Quadro 2000D), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, -0.7%). In other words, the Quadro 2000D is clustered tightly with a group of mobile and entry-level desktop parts, all within roughly a single percentage point of each other. Its 23rd percentile ranking among all GPUs underscores that this is a modest performer by modern standards, but within its peer group it is competitive.

The GeForce 825M, by contrast, sits at 3694, a full 6.4% behind the Quadro 2000D. Its nearest rivals tell a similar story. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M averages 3717 (-0.6% versus the 825M), the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M averages 3718 (-0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M averages 3740 (-1.2%). The only rival that the 825M beats is the AMD Radeon HD 6770, which scores 3649, a 1.2% gap in favor of the 825M. With a 22nd percentile ranking, the 825M is essentially at the same performance tier as the Quadro 2000D, but slightly below it in raw OpenCL throughput.

What stands out here is that the Quadro 2000D, despite being a workstation-oriented card from 2011, outperforms a mobile GeForce part from 2014 in this specific compute benchmark. The 6.4% delta is not transformative, but it is a clear and repeatable result. The data shows that the Quadro 2000D’s advantage is real, even if it is modest. The 825M’s higher shading unit count and boost clock do not translate into a win in this test, which suggests that memory bandwidth or driver optimization may be playing a role — though the numbers alone cannot confirm the cause.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and target entirely different market segments. The Quadro 2000D is built on the Fermi architecture, specifically the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The GeForce 825M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip, also from TSMC but on a much smaller 28 nm process. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a 87 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 11.7 million per square millimeter — more than double the density of the Fermi part.

The memory subsystems are starkly different. The Quadro 2000D uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M also has 1024 MB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in just 14.40 GB/s — less than one-third of the Quadro’s bandwidth. This is a massive gap and likely explains why the Quadro wins the OpenCL benchmark despite having fewer shading units. The 825M does have a clock speed advantage: its base clock is 850 MHz with a boost up to 941 MHz, while the Quadro 2000D’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the available data. The Quadro’s memory clock is 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the 825M’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GeForce 825M has 384 shading units — exactly double — along with 32 TMUs and only 8 ROPs. The 825M’s pixel rate is 7.528 GPixel/s, compared to 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 30.11 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 throughput, the 825M hits 722.7 GFLOPS while the Quadro 2000D manages 480.0 GFLOPS. So the 825M is theoretically much faster in pure compute and fill-rate terms, yet it still loses the OpenCL benchmark — a strong indication that memory bandwidth is the bottleneck.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, requires a single-slot cooler, has no power connectors, and needs a 250 W power supply. It measures 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GeForce 825M is an IGP (integrated GPU) with a 33 W TDP, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions — it is designed for portable devices. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the 825M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the 825M lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.175); the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark data, the Quadro 2000D wins the only head-to-head test available, taking the OpenCL compute crown by 6.4%. That makes it the better choice for any workload that relies on GPGPU compute, at least as measured by Geekbench OpenCL. Its 41.60 GB/s of memory bandwidth is likely the key differentiator, as the 825M’s 14.40 GB/s is a severe limitation even with double the shading units and a higher FP32 rating. The Quadro’s 192 shading units and 16 ROPs are more balanced for a workstation card, and its 2x DVI display outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups.

The GeForce 825M, despite losing the benchmark, has its own areas of theoretical strength. Its 384 shading units and 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance suggest that, in compute tasks that are not memory-bound, it could outperform the Quadro 2000D. Its pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s are both higher than the Quadro’s, which could translate to better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios such as certain game rendering paths. The 825M also has a lower TDP of 33 W versus 62 W, making it far more power-efficient for portable applications. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is newer than the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16, though the practical impact on performance is unclear from the data.

The 825M’s Vulkan support (1.2.175) is an advantage for modern applications that use that API, while the Quadro 2000D has none listed. For users who need Vulkan compatibility, the 825M is the only option between these two. The Quadro’s workstation heritage, however, means it was designed for professional applications like CAD and rendering, though the benchmark data does not include specific tests for those workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins the only available head-to-head comparison, beating the GeForce 825M by 6.4% in Geekbench OpenCL. This result is consistent with the Quadro’s position among its nearest rivals — it beats or matches every one of them — while the 825M trails most of its own peer group. The Quadro’s 23rd percentile ranking versus the 825M’s 22nd percentile confirms that both are entry-level performers, but the Quadro is the stronger of the two.

For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the Quadro 2000D is the clear choice. Its 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, a massive advantage over the 825M’s DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro also offers dual DVI outputs, making it a practical option for professional multi-monitor setups, and its 62 W TDP is manageable for a desktop workstation. The 825M, with its 33 W TDP and IGP form factor, is designed for laptops where power efficiency is paramount, but it sacrifices memory bandwidth and raw compute throughput to achieve that efficiency.

That said, the 825M is not without merit. Its 384 shading units, 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, and Vulkan support make it a more modern part in some respects. If a workload is not memory-bound and can leverage Vulkan, the 825M may perform better than the OpenCL result suggests. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also newer than the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16. But the benchmark result is the only objective measure available, and it favors the Quadro 2000D decisively.

The Quadro 2000D’s launch MSRP was 599 USD, and it is end-of-life, as is the 825M. The Quadro was released on October 4, 2011, while the 825M came later on January 26, 2014. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler. The 825M’s predecessor is the GeForce 700M series, with the GeForce 900M as its successor. Neither card is current, but for anyone building a legacy system or seeking a cheap compute part, the Quadro 2000D is the better performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694. The Quadro 2000D wins by 6.4%.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000D compare to its closest rival, the Quadro K2000D?

A: The Quadro 2000D scores 3930, which is 0.3% higher than the Quadro K2000D’s average score of 3919.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M also has 1024 MB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Does the GeForce 825M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GeForce 825M supports Vulkan version 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, while the GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W. The 825M is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has more shading units and higher FP32 performance?

A: The GeForce 825M has 384 shading units and 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units and 480.0 GFLOPS, despite winning the OpenCL benchmark.