GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but the benchmark data draws a clear line between them. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the GeForce 830M wins decisively, posting a 15.6% higher score than the GT 635M. This result is consistent with the broader performance percentiles: the 830M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 635M sits at the 22nd percentile. The 830M is the faster part, and the data suggests it is the better choice for any workload that leans on raw compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 830M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, so its victory is absolute in this dataset. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 830M scores 4324 against the GT 635M's 3740, a 15.6% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial margin that shows up in a compute-oriented test. The 830M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3590, a test the GT 635M does not have a result for, which further extends its lead in modern API workloads.

The GT 635M has no benchmark wins in this data. Its only recorded score is the Geekbench OpenCL result of 3740, and it loses that comparison to the 830M. However, the GT 635M is not without a niche. Its nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which scores 3717, a 0.6% delta, meaning the GT 635M is effectively on par with a slightly newer mobile part. For users locked into a GT 635M, the data shows it is competitive with its immediate peers, even if it cannot match the 830M.

The use-case split is therefore simple: the 830M wins on compute performance and API support, while the GT 635M offers no performance advantage anywhere in the benchmark data. If the task is OpenCL acceleration, the 830M is the pick. If the task is Vulkan, the 830M is the only option with a recorded score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmark tests?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M is faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 4324 compared to the GT 635M's 3740, a 15.6% advantage.

Q: Does the GT 635M win any benchmark?

A: No. The data shows one head-to-head benchmark, and the GT 635M loses it. The GT 635M has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The 830M is at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 635M is at the 22nd percentile. Both are low-end parts, but the 830M is ranked higher.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The 830M has an average benchmark score of 3957, while the GT 635M has an average benchmark score of 3740.

Q: Does the GT 635M support Vulkan?

A: The data does not list a Vulkan score for the GT 635M, and its API list shows no Vulkan support. The 830M supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3590.

Q: How does the GT 635M compare to its own closest rivals?

A: The GT 635M is nearly identical to the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and the GeForce GT 740M, with deltas of 0.6% for both. It is also 1.2% ahead of the GeForce 825M and 1.4% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 710.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL. The 830M scores 4324, and the GT 635M scores 3740. The delta is 15.6%, which is a significant performance gap for a single-generation comparison. To put that in context, look at the 830M's nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956 (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953 (0.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 3964 (0.2% ahead of the 830M). The 830M's OpenCL score of 4324 is well above all of these, meaning it outperforms its own closest competitors by a wide margin in this specific test.

The GT 635M's score of 3740 is much closer to its own rivals. The Quadro 3000M scores 3718 (0.6% behind the GT 635M), the GT 740M scores 3717 (0.6% behind), and the GeForce 825M scores 3694 (1.2% behind). The GT 635M is also only 1.4% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 710's score of 3792. This shows the GT 635M is a mid-pack performer among its peers, whereas the 830M is a clear standout in its own comparison group.

The 15.6% delta between the two GPUs in OpenCL is roughly five times larger than the typical deltas seen among the GT 635M's nearest rivals (which range from 0.6% to 1.4%). This is not a close race; the 830M is in a different performance tier.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal why the 830M wins. The 830M has 256 shading units, while the GT 635M has only 96. That is a 2.67x difference in shader count. The 830M also has 8 ROPs versus the GT 635M's 4 ROPs, and both have 16 TMUs. The clock speeds tell a similar story: the 830M runs at a base of 1082 MHz and a boost of 1150 MHz, while the GT 635M has no base or boost clock listed in the data.

Memory is a mixed bag. Both use 2 GB of DDR3, but the GT 635M has a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 830M has a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 635M has twice the memory bandwidth, but that does not compensate for the 830M's massive shader advantage. The 830M's pixel rate is 9.200 GPixel/s versus the GT 635M's 1.900 GPixel/s, a 4.8x difference. Texture rate is 18.40 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s, a 2.4x difference. FP32 performance is 588.8 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS, a 3.2x difference.

The bus interface also differs: the 830M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GT 635M uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. The 830M is rated at 33 W TDP, and the GT 635M is rated at 35 W TDP, so power draw is nearly identical despite the performance gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The 830M is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108 chip, while the GT 635M is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF108 chip. The process node tells the story: the 830M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the GT 635M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The 830M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M / mm². The GT 635M has 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, yielding a density of only 5.0M / mm². The 830M is denser and more efficient per square millimeter.

API support reflects the newer architecture. The 830M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GT 635M also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but it has no Vulkan support listed. That is a meaningful feature gap for modern workloads.

The 830M's boost clock of 1150 MHz is a feature the GT 635M lacks entirely, as no base or boost clocks are listed for the Fermi part. The 830M's generation is GeForce 800M, while the GT 635M is from GeForce 600M. The 830M's predecessor is GeForce 700M, and its successor is GeForce 900M; the GT 635M's predecessor is GeForce 500M, and its successor is GeForce 700M. The 830M launched on 2014-03-11, while the GT 635M launched on 2012-03-21, a two-year gap that explains the architectural improvements.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the superior GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 15.6%, has a higher average benchmark score (3957 vs. 3740), and ranks in a higher percentile of all GPUs (24th vs. 22nd). Its shader count is nearly triple that of the GT 635M, and its FP32 throughput is over three times higher. The GT 635M's only advantage is memory bandwidth, where its 128-bit bus provides 28.80 GB/s versus the 830M's 14.40 GB/s, but that does not translate into a benchmark win.

For users choosing between these two, the 830M is the clear pick for any compute workload. Its Vulkan support and higher OpenCL score make it future-proof relative to the GT 635M. The GT 635M is not a bad part for its era, it is within 1.4% of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 and ahead of the GeForce 825M, but it is outclassed by the 830M. The GT 635M should only be chosen if the system requires the older Fermi architecture or if the higher memory bandwidth is somehow critical, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where that pays off. The verdict is simple: take the 830M.