NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the GeForce 825M taking a 7.6% lead over the Quadro 2000M in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 3694 against 3434. This win is reflected in the overall benchmark averages, where the 825M sits at 3694 compared to the Quadro’s 3434. However, the underlying specifications and architectural differences reveal a more nuanced story that goes beyond a simple performance ranking. The 825M belongs to the Kepler 2.0 generation on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000M is a Fermi-era part on a 40 nm node, released roughly three years earlier. These are not direct competitors in the traditional sense; one targets consumer laptops, the other professional mobile workstations, yet their benchmark proximity makes for an interesting comparison of efficiency versus raw architectural throughput.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce 825M is the clear winner for general compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3694 outpaces the Quadro 2000M’s 3434 by 7.6%, and it holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs at 22% versus the Quadro’s 21%. For users seeking maximum raw compute in a mobile form factor, the 825M is the data-backed choice. The Quadro 2000M, however, is not without merit; its 2 GB of memory and 128-bit bus provide double the memory capacity and bandwidth of the 825M, which could be critical for certain professional workloads that require larger datasets resident in VRAM. The verdict from the data is that the 825M wins on compute density and efficiency, while the Quadro 2000M offers a memory advantage that the benchmark does not capture. Given its higher transistor count (1,170 million vs. 1,020 million) and larger die size (238 mm² vs. 87 mm²), the Quadro’s lower score suggests significant architectural inefficiency compared to the newer Kepler design.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 825M wins in compute throughput, as evidenced by the single head-to-head benchmark. Its shading unit count of 384 is double the Quadro’s 192, and its FP32 performance of 722.7 GFLOPS is substantially higher than the Quadro’s 422.4 GFLOPS. This points to a clear advantage in tasks that rely on parallel floating-point calculations, such as general-purpose GPU computing or shader-heavy graphics. The 825M also has a higher texture rate (30.11 GTexel/s vs. 17.60 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (7.528 GPixel/s vs. 4.400 GPixel/s), suggesting it can fill geometry and textures faster in real-time rendering scenarios. The Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, wins on memory capacity and bandwidth: 2 GB versus 1 GB, and 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. This means the Quadro can hold more texture data or larger framebuffers without spilling to system memory, which could be a decisive factor in professional CAD or DCC applications where scene complexity exceeds the 825M’s memory pool. The Quadro also has double the ROPs (16 vs. 8), which may improve fill-rate-bound operations at higher resolutions, despite its lower overall pixel rate due to clock speed differences.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast. The GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip built on Kepler 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This node allows for a compact 87 mm² die with 1,020 million transistors, achieving a transistor density of 11.7M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro 2000M is based on the GF106 chip, using the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, resulting in a much larger 238 mm² die with 1,170 million transistors and a lower density of 4.9M per mm². Kepler 2.0 brings architectural refinements that allow the 825M to deliver higher performance per transistor, a fact reflected in its superior benchmark scores despite fewer transistors overall. The 825M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This configuration means the 825M relies on a wider shader array to achieve its compute lead, while the Quadro allocates more resources to memory-facing operations. The 825M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the Quadro has no Vulkan support listed, indicating a modern API advantage for the Kepler part. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 825M’s newer architecture likely handles these APIs more efficiently.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has an average benchmark score of 3694, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434, giving the 825M a 7.6% advantage in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000M have any memory advantage over the GeForce 825M?

A: Yes, the Quadro 2000M features 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, which is double the 1 GB and 14.40 GB/s of the GeForce 825M.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences between the two?

A: The GeForce 825M has 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, while the Quadro 2000M has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, reflecting the 40 nm versus 28 nm process node difference.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce 825M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support; the Quadro 2000M does not have any Vulkan support specified.

Q: How do their shading unit counts compare?

A: The GeForce 825M has 384 shading units, exactly double the Quadro 2000M’s 192 shading units, which contributes to its higher FP32 compute performance.

Q: What is the TDP for each GPU?

A: The GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro 2000M is rated at 55 W, making the 825M significantly more power-efficient.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are conclusive. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M scored 3694, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scored 3434, yielding a delta of 7.6% in favor of the 825M. This margin is consistent with the performance gap suggested by their compute specifications. The 825M’s FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS is roughly 71% higher than the Quadro’s 422.4 GFLOPS, which should translate into an even larger lead in pure compute workloads. However, the benchmark result shows a narrower gap, likely because the Quadro’s superior memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s) helps it offset some of its compute deficit in real-world OpenCL tasks that are memory-bound. The 825M also outperforms the Quadro in pixel and texture rates, with 7.528 GPixel/s and 30.11 GTexel/s compared to the Quadro’s 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s. These numbers suggest the 825M is better suited for fill-rate-intensive rendering, while the Quadro’s larger ROP count (16 vs. 8) may provide a partial counterbalance in specific scenarios, though the data does not include a benchmark that isolates this. The win tally reflects this outcome: the 825M records 1 win, while the Quadro 2000M records 0 wins.

Specification Differences

The most striking differences between the two GPUs lie in their core architectures and memory subsystems. The GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip on a 40 nm process. This results in a die size of 87 mm² for the 825M versus 238 mm² for the Quadro, despite the Quadro having more transistors (1,170 million vs. 1,020 million). The 825M’s base clock is 850 MHz with a boost of 941 MHz, while the Quadro 2000M lists no base or boost clock figures. Memory clocks are identical at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, but the memory configuration differs: the 825M has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, doubling bandwidth from 14.40 GB/s to 28.80 GB/s. Shading units are doubled in the 825M (384 vs. 192), while ROPs are doubled in the Quadro (16 vs. 8); both have 32 TMUs. The 825M offers higher pixel and texture rates, and its FP32 performance is 722.7 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS. TDP also differs significantly, with the 825M at 33 W and the Quadro at 55 W. The 825M is an IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The 825M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, but the Quadro does not list Vulkan support; both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are far apart, with the Quadro launching on 2011-01-12 and the 825M on 2014-01-26, placing them in different generations and market segments.