NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M records an average benchmark score of 4151, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694. The K2100M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the 825M is at the 22nd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K2100M scores 4587 against the GeForce 825M's 3694, a lead of 24.2% for the Quadro part. That is the only head-to-head test recorded in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: For the Quadro K2100M, the nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (average score 4170, 0.4% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1% behind). For the GeForce 825M, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718, 0.6% ahead).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, compared to 384 on the GeForce 825M. The Quadro also has 48 texture mapping units versus 32, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W, which is lower than the Quadro K2100M's 55 W. The GeForce 825M is also listed as an IGP form factor, while the Quadro uses an MXM Module.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs come from NVIDIA and are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge significantly in chip design. The Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip, a Kepler architecture part with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip, labeled as Kepler 2.0, with 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, 11.5M per mm² for the Quadro and 11.7M per mm² for the GeForce, but the absolute scale is very different.

The Quadro's larger die gives it more execution resources across the board. It packs 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GeForce 825M, by comparison, has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That difference in ROP count matters for fill-rate-heavy workloads, and the pixel rate reflects it: 8.004 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 7.528 GPixel/s for the GeForce. Texture rate is closer, 32.02 GTexel/s versus 30.11 GTexel/s, suggesting the gap in shading throughput is more pronounced than in texture work.

Clock behavior separates the two as well. The Quadro K2100M runs at a fixed 667 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GeForce 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GeForce compensates for fewer cores with higher clocks, but the Quadro still produces more FP32 throughput: 768.4 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems are starkly different. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, giving only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 3.3x bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which will dominate any memory-bandwidth-sensitive task. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GeForce uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro released in July 2013 and the GeForce in January 2014. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor the Quadro Maxwell-M; the GeForce 825M follows the GeForce 700M and precedes the GeForce 900M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K2100M scores 4587, and the GeForce 825M scores 3694. That is a 24.2% margin in favor of the Quadro. This is the only head-to-head test, so the result carries the full weight of the direct comparison. The margin is substantial and aligns with the architectural differences, particularly the Quadro's larger memory bus and GDDR5 memory versus the GeForce's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Beyond the direct test, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Quadro K2100M averages 4151 across its recorded tests, which include Geekbench Metal at 3524, Geekbench OpenCL at 4587, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4343. The GeForce 825M has only one recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL at 3694, which is also its average score. The Quadro's average is 12.4% higher than the GeForce's average, a smaller gap than the direct OpenCL comparison but still clearly favorable to the Quadro.

The Quadro's Vulkan score of 4343 and Metal score of 3524 also exceed the GeForce's single OpenCL result. That gives the Quadro three recorded scores above the GeForce's one, though the GeForce lacks Vulkan and Metal entries, so those comparisons are not apples-to-apples. What the data does show is consistency on the Quadro side across multiple API frameworks, which suggests the architectural advantage is not limited to a single workload type.

It is worth questioning whether the GeForce 825M's higher clocks, 941 MHz boost versus 667 MHz, could close the gap in other workloads. The FP32 figures indicate the Quadro still leads despite the clock disadvantage, 768.4 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS. But the GeForce's smaller memory bandwidth, 14.40 GB/s, would likely limit it in compute tasks that stream large datasets. The 48.13 GB/s of the Quadro is a structural advantage that clocks cannot overcome.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M as the stronger GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 24.2%, has a higher average benchmark score (4151 versus 3694), and ranks higher in overall GPU percentile (25th versus 22nd). The Quadro also offers more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, double the memory capacity, and over triple the memory bandwidth. Every architectural metric that matters for compute performance favors the Quadro.

The GeForce 825M does have advantages in power consumption, 33 W versus 55 W, and in its smaller die size, 87 mm² versus 221 mm². It also runs at higher clocks, which is a point in its favor for lightly threaded workloads. But the benchmark data does not show a single test where the GeForce wins. In the only recorded comparison, it loses by a wide margin.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the Quadro K2100M is the choice when compute performance and memory bandwidth matter. The GeForce 825M is the choice when lower power draw is the priority and the workload is light enough not to stress its smaller memory bus. The Quadro's 24.2% OpenCL lead is the single most informative number in the comparison, and it aligns with the hardware specifications.

The percentile data reinforces the verdict. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, only 1% behind, and the AMD Radeon R5 M330, 0.4% behind. The GeForce 825M's nearest rivals are lower-tier parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which is 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, also 0.6% ahead. The GeForce 825M sits in a slower peer group, and the Quadro sits in a faster one.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

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

| Chip | GK106S | GK208 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | GeForce 800M |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,020 million |

| Die size | 221 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Base clock | 667 MHz | 850 MHz |

| Boost clock | 667 MHz | 941 MHz |

| Memory clock | 752 MHz (3 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 | 48.13 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading units | 576 | 384 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel rate | 8.004 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 32.02 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.4 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 33 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Release date | 2013-07-22 | 2014-01-26 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 900M |

| Avg benchmark score | 4151 | 3694 |

| Percentile | 25 | 22 |

The two share the same process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), and API support (DirectX 12 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175). Both have no ray tracing or tensor cores, no power connectors, and display outputs described as portable-device dependent. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2100M wins in every measured performance category. It leads by 24.2% in the only direct benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL. It has a higher FP32 throughput, 768.4 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS, despite running at much lower clocks. Its pixel rate is 6.3% higher, and its texture rate is 6.3% higher. The memory bandwidth advantage is the largest gap: 48.13 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 3.3x difference. For any workload that streams data, such as large compute kernels or high-resolution textures, the Quadro has a decisive edge.

The GeForce 825M wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP is 33 W versus 55 W, a 40% reduction. The die is only 87 mm² compared to 221 mm², which means less silicon and potentially lower manufacturing cost, though the database does not record pricing. It also runs at higher clocks, 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, which could help in latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale with core count. The GeForce is also a newer product by release date, January 2014 versus July 2013, and its GeForce 800M generation succeeded the GeForce 700M line.

For use-case selection, the data suggests the Quadro K2100M for OpenCL compute, any memory-intensive rendering, or workloads that benefit from GDDR5 bandwidth. Its Vulkan score of 4343 and Metal score of 3524 also indicate solid API coverage for a mobile workstation part. The GeForce 825M is better suited to low-power mobile platforms where the 33 W TDP and IGP form factor fit, and where the higher boost clock of 941 MHz can compensate for fewer cores. Its single benchmark score of 3694 is below every recorded Quadro score, so there is no measured scenario where it outperforms the Quadro.

The nearest-rival data contextualizes each card differently. The Quadro competes with the GTX 1050 Ti, a desktop-capable part, and trails it by only 1%. The GeForce 825M competes with older mobile parts like the GT 740M and Quadro 3000M, and trails both by 0.6%. That places the Quadro in a higher performance tier. The Quadro also has more recorded benchmarks, three versus one, which gives a more complete picture of its capabilities. The GeForce's single score leaves its Vulkan and Metal performance unknown, but the OpenCL result is clear: it is 24.2% behind the Quadro in the one test where both have numbers.