NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The GeForce 830M and Quadro 2000 are two very different NVIDIA parts from different eras, and the benchmark data reflects a clear generational shift. The GeForce 830M, a mobile chip from the Maxwell generation, outperforms the older desktop Quadro 2000, a Fermi-based professional card, in the one available head-to-head test. While the Quadro 2000 carries the professional pedigree, the 830M delivers superior raw compute performance, making this comparison less about workstation features and more about architectural efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is a decisive win for the GeForce 830M. In this compute-oriented benchmark, the 830M scores 4324, while the Quadro 2000 manages 3898. This translates to a delta of 10.9% in favor of the 830M, a substantial margin for a single test. This advantage is not a close call; the 830M is firmly ahead.

This 10.9% lead is particularly telling because the two cards are nearly tied in their overall average benchmark scores. The 830M has a cumulative average benchmark score of 3957, while the Quadro 2000 sits at 3898. Despite the 830M’s win in the OpenCL test, its average is only 1.5% higher than the Quadro 2000's. This shows that while the 830M wins the specific compute workload tested, the overall performance picture is much closer, with both cards landing in the bottom quarter of all GPUs (24th and 23rd percentile, respectively).

The benchmarks also place each card in a specific competitive context. The 830M’s average score of 3957 puts it in a dead heat with the AMD Radeon R5 M420, which scores 3956 with a 0% delta. It is also virtually tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, +0.1%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, -0.2%). The Quadro 2000, with its 3898 average, is similarly matched with the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, +0.4%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, -0.5%). The data shows that both cards are operating in a performance tier where even a few points can shift rival rankings.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast, representing two distinct design philosophies. The GeForce 830M is built on the Maxwell architecture using the GM108 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a modern, power-efficient design that packs 1,020 million transistors into a tiny 77 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro 2000 uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, built on a 40 nm process. It contains 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a significantly lower transistor density of 4.9M per mm².

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro 2000, despite having less total memory (1024 MB), uses faster GDDR5 on a wider 128-bit bus, achieving a much higher bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. This means the Quadro 2000 has nearly three times the memory bandwidth of the 830M, which can be critical for certain types of workloads.

Compute resources tell another story. The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 2000 has fewer shading units (192) but more TMUs (32) and ROPs (16). This configurational difference is reflected in their fill rates: the 830M has a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 18.40 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000 has a lower pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s but a higher texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the 830M leads with 588.8 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro 2000’s 480.0 GFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 830M wins in raw compute throughput and modern feature support. Its higher FP32 performance and 10.9% OpenCL benchmark lead suggest it is the better choice for general-purpose compute tasks and any workload that leverages the Maxwell architecture’s efficiency. The 830M also supports a newer feature set, including Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed. For a user running modern applications that can offload work to the GPU via OpenCL or Vulkan, the 830M is the clear winner.

The Quadro 2000’s potential strengths lie in its memory bandwidth and texture processing. With 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth and 32 TMUs, it is better equipped for tasks that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require heavy texture fetching, such as certain types of 3D rendering or image processing. It also offers a wider 128-bit memory bus, which can be an advantage in scenarios where the 2 GB of slower DDR3 on the 830M becomes a bottleneck. However, in the single benchmark available, this advantage did not translate to a win.

It is important to note that the Quadro 2000 is a professional workstation card, and its feature set is geared towards certified applications and stability. The data does not include any specific workstation benchmarks (like SPECviewperf), so its strengths in that area cannot be quantified here. Based strictly on the available data, the 830M wins the compute performance battle, while the Quadro 2000’s superior memory subsystem remains an untested potential advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification, reflecting their different target markets and release timelines.

• Process Node: The 830M uses a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process.
• Transistors: The 830M has 1,020 million, while the Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million.
• Die Size: The 830M is 77 mm², while the Quadro 2000 is 238 mm².
• Memory Size: The 830M has 2 GB, while the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB.
• Memory Type: The 830M uses DDR3, while the Quadro 2000 uses GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: The 830M has a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro 2000 has a 128-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The 830M provides 14.40 GB/s, while the Quadro 2000 provides 41.60 GB/s.
• Shading Units: The 830M has 256, while the Quadro 2000 has 192.
• TMUs: The 830M has 16, while the Quadro 2000 has 32.
• ROPs: The 830M has 8, while the Quadro 2000 has 16.
• Pixel Rate: The 830M is rated at 9.200 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 2000 is rated at 5.000 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The 830M is rated at 18.40 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000 is rated at 20.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The 830M delivers 588.8 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 2000 delivers 480.0 GFLOPS.
• TDP: The 830M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W.
• Slot Width: The 830M is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card.
• Bus Interface: The 830M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: The 830M is "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro 2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.
• Vulkan Support: The 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support.
• Release Date: The 830M was released in March 2014, while the Quadro 2000 was released in December 2010.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M is faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4324 compared to the Quadro 2000's 3898, a 10.9% advantage.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same amount of memory?

A: No. The GeForce 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 2000 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s, compared to the 830M's 14.40 GB/s, due to its wider 128-bit bus and faster GDDR5 memory.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The GeForce 830M is based on the Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro 2000 is based on the older Fermi architecture.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: The GeForce 830M supports Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 2000 does not have Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GeForce 830M has a TDP of 33 W, making it far more power-efficient than the Quadro 2000, which has a TDP of 62 W.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the superior performer in compute workloads. Its 10.9% lead in the OpenCL benchmark and higher FP32 throughput (588.8 GFLOPS vs. 480.0 GFLOPS) make it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU computing. It also offers a more modern feature set with Vulkan support, a smaller die, and significantly lower power consumption at 33 W versus 62 W. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, or energy efficiency, the 830M is the clear pick.

The Quadro 2000, however, should not be dismissed entirely. Its niche lies in its memory subsystem and texture processing capabilities. With 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth and 32 TMUs, it has the hardware to potentially excel in memory-bound or texture-heavy tasks that are not reflected in the single compute benchmark available. Its 128-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory are substantial advantages over the 830M's narrow 64-bit DDR3 interface. If a workload requires high memory throughput rather than raw FP32 compute, the Quadro 2000 could be the better choice, but this is not evidenced by the provided benchmark results. For a straightforward performance comparison, the GeForce 830M wins.