NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the available data?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694. The Quadro K2000D leads by 6.1%.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K2000D is essentially tied with the Quadro 2000D (3930, -0.3% delta) and slightly ahead of the Quadro 2000 (3898, +0.5%). The GeForce 825M sits near the GeForce GT 740M (3717, -0.6%) and Quadro 3000M (3718, -0.6%), while trailing the GeForce GT 635M (3740, -1.2%).

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two cards?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The GeForce 825M has explicit base and boost clocks of 850 MHz and 941 MHz, respectively. The Quadro K2000D does not list base or boost clocks in the data, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Quadro K2000D uses 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The GeForce 825M uses 1,020 million transistors on a 87 mm² die. The GeForce 825M has a higher transistor density at 11.7M / mm² versus 10.8M / mm² for the Quadro.

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W and does not list a suggested PSU. Both have no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow win for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D. In the only benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 3919 versus 3694 for the GeForce 825M — a 6.1% advantage. This places the Quadro in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, one point higher than the GeForce 825M’s 22nd percentile. Neither card is a performance leader; both sit near the bottom quartile of the database.

For a workstation-oriented buyer, the Quadro K2000D is the stronger pick. It offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, a 128-bit bus, and 16 ROPs — double the ROP count of the GeForce 825M. It also has a higher pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s vs 7.528 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 30.11 GTexel/s). Its FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS edges out the GeForce’s 722.7 GFLOPS.

For a mobile or low-power scenario, the GeForce 825M has its own merits. Its TDP of 33 W is 18 W lower than the Quadro’s 51 W. It is an integrated-class part (IGP slot width) with no dimensions listed, making it suitable for portable devices where the Quadro’s 202 mm length would not fit. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is newer than the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16.

The GeForce 825M wins zero benchmarks in the head-to-head data. However, its lower power draw and smaller footprint may make it preferable in constrained environments. The Quadro K2000D is the performance choice; the GeForce 825M is the efficiency choice. There is no scenario in the data where the GeForce outperforms the Quadro in raw compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark comparison is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K2000D posts 3919 points against 3694 for the GeForce 825M, a delta of 6.1%. This is the only head-to-head metric available, and the Quadro wins it outright.

Contextualizing this result with nearest rivals helps clarify the margin. The Quadro’s score places it just 0.3% below the Quadro 2000D (3930) and 0.5% above the Quadro 2000 (3898). The GeForce 825M’s score sits 0.6% below the GeForce GT 740M (3717) and 1.2% above the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649). The gap between the two cards is larger than the gaps each has to its immediate rivals, suggesting that the 6.1% advantage is a real, consistent performance separation rather than noise.

The Quadro also leads in derived throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s is slightly above the GeForce’s 7.528 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 30.53 GTexel/s versus 30.11 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 732.7 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS. These margins are all under 2%, but they align with the benchmark direction.

Memory bandwidth is where the separation is starkest. The Quadro’s 64.00 GB/s is more than four times the GeForce’s 14.40 GB/s. This difference stems from memory type (GDDR5 vs DDR3), bus width (128-bit vs 64-bit), and memory clock (1000 MHz vs 900 MHz). In memory-bound workloads, the Quadro should widen its lead beyond the 6.1% benchmark delta.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro K2000D | GeForce 825M |

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

| Chip | GK107 | GK208 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 941 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 202 mm length, 111 mm height | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2014-01-26 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not listed |

Shading units (384) and TMUs (32) are identical across both cards. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores. FP16 is not listed for either.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they use different chips. The Quadro K2000D uses GK107 under the Kepler architecture. The GeForce 825M uses GK208 under Kepler 2.0. This architectural revision accounts for several differences beyond raw chip size.

The GeForce 825M’s GK208 die is smaller (87 mm² vs 118 mm²) and uses fewer transistors (1,020 million vs 1,270 million), yet achieves a higher transistor density (11.7M / mm² vs 10.8M / mm²). This suggests a more compact design with better packing efficiency, likely enabling its lower 33 W TDP.

The Quadro K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, a professional workstation line. The GeForce 825M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation, a mobile consumer line. Their predecessors and successors reflect this split: the Quadro follows Quadro Fermi and leads to Quadro Maxwell, while the GeForce follows GeForce 700M and leads to GeForce 900M.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Quadro pairs GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s. The GeForce uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 14.40 GB/s. This four-fold bandwidth gap is the single largest architectural differentiator. The ROP count also differs: 16 on the Quadro versus 8 on the GeForce, directly affecting pixel fill rate.

The GeForce 825M lists explicit base and boost clocks (850 MHz / 941 MHz), while the Quadro K2000D does not list clock speeds in the data. Despite this, the Quadro still produces slightly higher pixel, texture, and FP32 rates, indicating that its unlisted clocks are sufficient to overcome any clock disadvantage.

Slot form factors diverge sharply. The Quadro is a single-slot card with physical dimensions (202 mm length, 111 mm height) and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GeForce 825M is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dimensions, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. This positions the GeForce for laptop or compact integrated designs, while the Quadro targets desktop workstations.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000D wins in raw compute performance. It leads the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark by 6.1%. It also has higher pixel rate (7.632 vs 7.528 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (30.53 vs 30.11 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (732.7 vs 722.7 GFLOPS). Memory bandwidth is overwhelmingly in its favor: 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. With 2 GB of GDDR5 versus 1 GB of DDR3, the Quadro also has double the memory capacity and a wider 128-bit bus. For any compute-heavy workload — rendering, simulation, or data processing — the Quadro is the stronger choice.

The GeForce 825M wins in power efficiency and physical flexibility. Its TDP of 33 W is 18 W lower than the Quadro’s 51 W. As an IGP with no power connectors and no dimensions, it can fit into portable devices where the Quadro’s 202 mm single-slot card cannot. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is a newer generation than the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16, which may offer better bandwidth per lane in compatible systems. The GeForce also has explicit boost clock behavior (941 MHz boost vs 850 MHz base), allowing dynamic frequency scaling.

The benchmark data gives the Quadro one win and the GeForce zero wins in the head-to-head test. However, the GeForce’s advantages are not captured in compute benchmarks. For a laptop or low-power embedded system, the GeForce 825M’s reduced power draw and integrated form factor are decisive. For a desktop workstation with a 250 W PSU and space for a full-length card, the Quadro K2000D delivers measurably better performance.

The release timeline also favors the GeForce in terms of newer availability: it launched on 2014-01-26 versus the Quadro’s 2013-02-28. Both are end-of-life products, so neither should be selected for new high-performance builds. Within their respective niches, the Quadro K2000D is the compute winner, and the GeForce 825M is the mobility winner.