NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life GPUs, but they target completely different segments with divergent architectural priorities. Benchmark data shows the GeForce 830M holds a 10% lead in the single shared OpenCL test, yet the Quadro 2000D counters with a wider memory bus, higher bandwidth, and a professional display configuration. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close—3957 for the 830M versus 3930 for the Quadro 2000D—placing both in the 23rd-24th percentile of all GPUs. The real differentiators lie in memory subsystem design, thermal envelopes, and intended use-case scenarios rather than raw compute throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3957 on average, which is 0.7% higher than the Quadro 2000D’s 3930. The 830M also achieves a 24th percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 23rd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GeForce 830M scores 4324, defeating the Quadro 2000D’s 3930 by a 10% margin. This is the only benchmark shared between the two in the head-to-head data.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The GeForce 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s—nearly 2.9 times the bandwidth.

Q: Are there any Vulkan API differences?

A: Yes. The GeForce 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000D lists no Vulkan support at all. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The GeForce 830M is rated at 33 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the Quadro 2000D is a single-slot card with a 62 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GeForce 830M achieves 9.200 GPixel/s, which is 84% higher than the Quadro 2000D’s 5.000 GPixel/s. However, the Quadro has a higher texture rate at 20.00 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip based on Maxwell architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It integrates 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Quadro 2000D is a Fermi-architecture GPU (chip GF106) on TSMC’s older 40 nm node, with 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die—resulting in a lower density of 4.9 million per square millimeter.

The Maxwell chip is clearly the more modern design, but the Fermi part counters with a more robust memory subsystem. The GeForce 830M features 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 2000D has fewer shading units at 192, but doubles the TMUs to 32 and the ROPs to 16. This trade-off explains the divergent fill rates: the 830M leads in pixel throughput while the Quadro 2000D leads in texture throughput.

Memory is a major architectural split. The GeForce 830M ships with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit interface, running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), delivering 41.60 GB/s compared to the 830M’s 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro’s bandwidth advantage is substantial, exceeding the 830M by approximately 2.9 times.

Clock behavior differs as well. The GeForce 830M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1082 MHz and 1150 MHz, respectively. The Quadro 2000D lists no base or boost clock figures in the data, only its memory clock. The 830M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan API entry. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The physical and power profiles are entirely different. The GeForce 830M is an IGP with no power connectors and a 33 W TDP. The Quadro 2000D is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with a 62 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro outputs via 2x DVI, while the 830M uses portable-device-dependent outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the head-to-head data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GeForce 830M scores 4324 against the Quadro 2000D’s 3930. That 10% delta is decisive in favor of the Maxwell-based part. The 830M’s higher shading unit count (256 vs 192) and its boost clock of 1150 MHz likely contribute to this lead, though the Quadro’s higher texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s) suggests it could win in geometry-heavy workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the GeForce 830M’s average score of 3957 places it just 0.1% ahead of the GeForce GT 745M (3953) and 0.2% behind the Quadro K2000 (3964). The Quadro 2000D’s average of 3930 sits 0.3% behind the Quadro K2000D (3919) and 0.7% behind both the GT 745M and the Radeon R5 M420 (3956). Notably, the Quadro 2000D’s nearest rival list includes the GeForce 830M itself, showing a -0.7% delta from the 830M’s score.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is only available for the GeForce 830M, which scores 3590. The Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan score, consistent with its lack of Vulkan API support. In the overall win tally, the GeForce 830M takes 1 win and the Quadro 2000D takes 0.

The Verdict

The data favors the GeForce 830M for raw compute performance. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 10%, has a higher average score (3957 vs 3930), and supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4 that the Quadro 2000D entirely lacks. The 830M also achieves a higher pixel fill rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s) and delivers more FP32 throughput at 588.8 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

However, the Quadro 2000D is not without merit. Its memory bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s is nearly triple the 830M’s 14.40 GB/s, and its 128-bit bus width is double the 830M’s 64-bit interface. The Quadro also has double the ROPs (16 vs 8) and TMUs (32 vs 16), giving it superior texture fill at 20.00 GTexel/s. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound or texture-heavy, the Quadro 2000D could outperform its benchmark deficit suggests.

The production timeline is telling: the Quadro 2000D launched in October 2011, while the GeForce 830M arrived in March 2014—a gap of roughly 2.5 years. The 830M’s newer Maxwell architecture and smaller 28 nm node (versus 40 nm) explain its efficiency advantage: 33 W TDP versus 62 W, despite delivering higher compute scores. The Quadro 2000D does carry a launch MSRP of 599 USD, but that is the only pricing data available and should not be construed as a value judgment.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GeForce 830M | Quadro 2000D |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | N/A |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 650 MHz / 2.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 192 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 588.8 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 599 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 830M dominates in compute-bound scenarios. Its 10% Geekbench OpenCL win, higher FP32 throughput (588.8 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS), and superior pixel rate make it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute, modern API support, and any workload that benefits from Maxwell’s architectural efficiency. Its 33 W TDP and IGP form factor also mean it can operate in power-constrained environments where the Quadro’s 62 W requirement and single-slot footprint would be prohibitive. The 830M’s Vulkan 1.4 support gives it a clear path for modern graphics APIs, while the Quadro 2000D has none.

The Quadro 2000D wins in memory-bound and texture-heavy applications. Its 41.60 GB/s bandwidth is 2.9 times the 830M’s, and its 128-bit bus allows for wider data transfers. With 32 TMUs and a 20.00 GTexel/s texture rate, it is better suited for tasks that involve heavy texture sampling. The Quadro’s 2x DVI outputs and professional Quadro branding suggest it was designed for workstation display use, though the data does not include professional application benchmarks to confirm this. Its larger die (238 mm²) and higher transistor count (1,170 million) indicate a more complex design, but the older 40 nm process makes it less efficient per watt.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload type. If the priority is compute performance, modern API compatibility, and low power draw, the GeForce 830M is the data-backed pick. If the priority is memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and a dedicated workstation form factor with dual DVI outputs, the Quadro 2000D offers those specific advantages—though its overall benchmark score lags by 0.7%. The 830M’s win in the only shared test, combined with its higher percentile ranking, makes it the stronger all-around performer in this comparison.