NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 825M in the only recorded head-to-head test. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the GeForce 825M scores 3694. That is a 14.8% advantage for the Quadro K3000M. The database also places the Quadro K3000M at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, while the GeForce 825M sits at the 22nd percentile. Both are end-of-life mobile parts, but the data suggests the Quadro K3000M is the stronger compute performer.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the recorded measurements, anyone prioritizing OpenCL compute throughput should choose the Quadro K3000M. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (average score 4268, a 0.6% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (average score 4282, a 1% gap). The GeForce 825M, by contrast, sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (average score 3717, a 0.6% gap) and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (average score 3718, a 0.6% gap). The GeForce 825M trails its nearest rivals by a small margin, while the Quadro K3000M roughly matches or slightly trails its closest competition. The Quadro K3000M is the better pick for compute workloads, while the GeForce 825M might be considered where lower power consumption is critical, given its 33 W TDP versus 75 W on the Quadro K3000M.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs come from NVIDIA and are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge significantly in chip design. The Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, which is a Kepler architecture part from the Quadro Kepler-M generation. The GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip, labeled as Kepler 2.0 architecture, from the GeForce 800M generation. The transistor counts tell a clear story: the GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GK208 has 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. Transistor density is similar, at 12.0M / mm² for the Quadro K3000M and 11.7M / mm² for the GeForce 825M, but the sheer scale of the Quadro K3000M's chip is about 3.5 times larger in transistor count.

The shading engine differs as well. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The GeForce 825M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That ROP count is a major architectural difference, as the Quadro K3000M has four times the pixel output capability, though the measured pixel rates are close (7.848 GPixel/s for the Quadro K3000M versus 7.528 GPixel/s for the GeForce 825M) due to clock differences. Texture rates are also similar, with the Quadro K3000M at 31.39 GTexel/s and the GeForce 825M at 30.11 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is nearly identical: 753.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro K3000M versus 722.7 GFLOPS for the GeForce 825M, a gap of only about 4%.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The interfaces differ, with the Quadro K3000M using MXM-B (3.0) and the GeForce 825M using PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro K3000M is an MXM module, while the GeForce 825M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a clear winner. The Quadro K3000M scores 4241, and the GeForce 825M scores 3694. The delta is 14.8% in favor of the Quadro K3000M. That is the only head-to-head test in the database, so the verdict is straightforward but limited.

Why does the Quadro K3000M win despite nearly identical FP32 figures? The measured FP32 is 753.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro K3000M versus 722.7 GFLOPS for the GeForce 825M, a difference of only about 4%. The real gap likely comes from memory bandwidth. The Quadro K3000M has a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory running at 2.8 Gbps effective, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M has a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory at 1800 Mbps effective, yielding just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 6.2x difference in bandwidth. For OpenCL workloads, which often stress memory access, the Quadro K3000M's massive bandwidth advantage explains most of the 14.8% score gap.

The GeForce 825M does have higher clocks, with a base of 850 MHz and a boost of 941 MHz, versus the Quadro K3000M's fixed 654 MHz base and boost. But those clocks cannot compensate for the memory bottleneck. The GeForce 825M also has 1024 MB of memory versus 2 GB on the Quadro K3000M, and the DDR3 type is slower than GDDR5. The data suggests that for compute-heavy tasks, memory bandwidth matters more than raw clock speed.

Specification Differences

Here are the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data:

• Chip: GK104 (Quadro K3000M) versus GK208 (GeForce 825M)
• Architecture: Kepler versus Kepler 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) versus GeForce 800M
• Transistors: 3,540 million versus 1,020 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² versus 87 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² versus 11.7M / mm²
• Base Clock: 654 MHz versus 850 MHz
• Boost Clock: 654 MHz versus 941 MHz
• Memory Clock: 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: 576 versus 384
• TMUs: 48 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 8
• Pixel Rate: 7.848 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 31.39 GTexel/s versus 30.11 GTexel/s
• FP32: 753.4 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W versus 33 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module versus IGP
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Release Date: 2012-05-31 versus 2014-01-26
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M versus GeForce 700M
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M versus GeForce 900M
• Benchmark Score (Geekbench OpenCL): 4241 versus 3694
• Percentile Vs All GPUs: 25 versus 22

The two GPUs share the same manufacturer, process node, foundry, power connector (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175). Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694. The Quadro K3000M leads by 14.8% in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K3000M has over six times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has lower power consumption?

A: The GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W. The GeForce 825M draws less than half the power.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU based on benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro K3000M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 3, which scores 4268 with a delta of -0.6%. The GeForce 825M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which scores 3717 with a delta of -0.6%. The Quadro K3000M also sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, -1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1.2%), while the GeForce 825M is near the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718, -0.6%) and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.2%).

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the GeForce 825M has 384. The Quadro K3000M also has 48 TMUs versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 8.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K3000M wins in compute throughput, as shown by the 14.8% OpenCL score advantage. It also wins decisively in memory bandwidth (89.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB), and memory type (GDDR5 versus DDR3). The Quadro K3000M has more shading units, more TMUs, and four times the ROPs. Its pixel rate (7.848 GPixel/s) and texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s) are slightly higher than the GeForce 825M's figures (7.528 GPixel/s and 30.11 GTexel/s). For any workload that stresses memory or parallel compute, the Quadro K3000M is the clear winner.

The GeForce 825M wins in power efficiency. Its TDP of 33 W is less than half the Quadro K3000M's 75 W. It also runs at higher clocks, with a base of 850 MHz and a boost of 941 MHz, versus the Quadro K3000M's fixed 654 MHz. The GeForce 825M uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro K3000M relies on MXM-B (3.0). The GeForce 825M is a newer part by release date (2014-01-26 versus 2012-05-31), and it belongs to the GeForce 800M generation, while the Quadro K3000M is from the Quadro Kepler-M generation. The GeForce 825M also has a slightly higher transistor density (11.7M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm², though this is marginal).

In practical terms, the data implies the Quadro K3000M suits compute-heavy tasks like rendering or data processing, where its bandwidth and shading resources matter. The GeForce 825M suits power-constrained mobile systems, where 33 W is a manageable load and the higher boost clock can help with lighter workloads. The benchmark data only covers OpenCL, so the gaming or professional application split is not directly measured, but the architectural differences point in the same direction: the Quadro K3000M has the hardware for heavier lifting, while the GeForce 825M trades compute capability for efficiency.