NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M leads with an average benchmark score of 3957, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M trails at 3434. This puts the 830M in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 21st percentile for the Quadro 2000M.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute performance?

A: The GeForce 830M delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro 2000M manages 422.4 GFLOPS. That is a difference of roughly 39% in favor of the 830M.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the 14.40 GB/s of the GeForce 830M, which uses a 64-bit bus. Both cards feature 2 GB of DDR3 memory.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GeForce 830M adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The GeForce 830M is rated at 33 W, while the Quadro 2000M consumes 55 W. The 830M achieves its higher performance with a lower power envelope.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The GeForce 830M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2M transistors per mm². The Quadro 2000M has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, for a density of just 4.9M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural generations. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. The process node difference alone explains much of the efficiency gap between them.

The manufacturing data is striking. The 830M integrates 1,020 million transistors on a die measuring 77 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Quadro 2000M integrates 1,170 million transistors, slightly more, but on a 238 mm² die, which yields only 4.9M transistors per mm². The Maxwell chip is over three times denser, a direct consequence of the newer 28 nm node versus the older 40 nm process.

Core configuration also differs. The GeForce 830M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro 2000M has double the TMUs and ROPs, which affects its fill rate characteristics.

Clock behavior separates the two as well. The 830M has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The Quadro 2000M has no base or boost clock listed in the database, so its dynamic range is undocumented. Both share the same memory clock of 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective data rate.

The form factors diverge significantly. The 830M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors, while the Quadro 2000M is an MXM module using the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. Neither has external power connectors, and both are portable device dependent for display outputs. The 830M connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, whereas the Quadro 2000M uses the MXM-A standard.

Production status is identical: both are end-of-life parts. Chronologically, the 830M was released on 2014-03-11, while the Quadro 830M predecessor is the GeForce 700M, and its successor is the GeForce 900M. The Quadro 2000M, released on 2011-01-12, succeeded the Quadro FX Mobile and was followed by Quadro Kepler-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 4324, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The 830M wins with a delta of 25.9%. This is a substantial margin, indicating a clear performance advantage for the newer Maxwell part in compute workloads.

The OpenCL result aligns with the raw FP32 figures. The 830M produces 588.8 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M, roughly a 39% advantage. The benchmark delta is lower than the theoretical compute delta, which suggests that memory bandwidth constraints or other factors partially offset the raw compute lead. The Quadro 2000M's double bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) likely helps it close some of the gap in memory-sensitive OpenCL operations.

Pixel and texture rates tell a mixed story. The 830M achieves 9.200 GPixel/s, more than double the 4.400 GPixel/s of the Quadro 2000M. In texture rate, however, the 830M leads by a smaller margin: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro 2000M's 32 TMUs compensate for its lower clock, nearly matching the 830M's texture throughput despite the latter's higher clock speed.

The GeForce 830M also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 3590 in the database. The Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan score recorded, and no Vulkan API support listed. This means the 830M has a functional advantage in modern graphics workloads that the Quadro 2000M simply cannot participate in.

The wins tally reflects the data: the 830M wins 1 benchmark, the Quadro 2000M wins 0. There is no recorded test in which the Quadro 2000M outperforms the 830M in the head-to-head comparison.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Process node: 28 nm for the 830M, 40 nm for the Quadro 2000M
• Transistors: 1,020 million for the 830M, 1,170 million for the Quadro 2000M
• Die size: 77 mm² for the 830M, 238 mm² for the Quadro 2000M
• Transistor density: 13.2M / mm² for the 830M, 4.9M / mm² for the Quadro 2000M
• Base clock: 1082 MHz for the 830M, none listed for the Quadro 2000M
• Boost clock: 1150 MHz for the 830M, none listed for the Quadro 2000M
• Memory bus width: 64 bit for the 830M, 128 bit for the Quadro 2000M
• Memory bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s for the 830M, 28.80 GB/s for the Quadro 2000M
• Shading units: 256 for the 830M, 192 for the Quadro 2000M
• TMUs: 16 for the 830M, 32 for the Quadro 2000M
• ROPs: 8 for the 830M, 16 for the Quadro 2000M
• Pixel rate: 9.200 GPixel/s for the 830M, 4.400 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000M
• Texture rate: 18.40 GTexel/s for the 830M, 17.60 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000M
• FP32: 588.8 GFLOPS for the 830M, 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M
• TDP: 33 W for the 830M, 55 W for the Quadro 2000M
• Slot width: IGP for the 830M, MXM Module for the Quadro 2000M
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 830M, MXM-A (3.0) for the Quadro 2000M
• Vulkan support: 1.4 for the 830M, none for the Quadro 2000M
• Release date: 2014-03-11 for the 830M, 2011-01-12 for the Quadro 2000M

Shared specifications include 2 GB of DDR3 memory, 900 MHz memory clock, 1800 Mbps effective memory speed, no power connectors, portable device dependent display outputs, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in compute workloads, with a 25.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. The 830M also achieves higher average benchmark scores (3957 versus 3434) and sits in a higher percentile among all GPUs (24th versus 21st).

The Quadro 2000M does have structural advantages in specific areas. Its 128-bit memory bus provides double the bandwidth, and its 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs give it higher texture and pixel processing resources per clock. However, these advantages do not translate into any recorded benchmark win. The database shows zero wins for the Quadro 2000M in the head-to-head comparison.

Power efficiency heavily favors the 830M. It delivers higher performance at 33 W, while the Quadro 2000M requires 55 W. The 830M also brings Vulkan 1.4 support, a modern API that the Quadro 2000M lacks entirely.

The verdict is straightforward: the GeForce 830M is the superior GPU in measured performance. The Quadro 2000M's only meaningful advantages lie in memory bandwidth and fill-rate resources, neither of which yields a benchmark victory in the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 588.8 GFLOPS FP32 output, 9.200 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 25.9% OpenCL benchmark lead make it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute, OpenCL workloads, and any application that leverages the Vulkan API. The 830M also wins on efficiency, with a 33 W TDP that is 22 W lower than the Quadro 2000M, making it better suited for thermally constrained portable systems.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has no recorded benchmark wins, but its specification sheet suggests areas where it could theoretically hold its own. The 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is exactly double that of the 830M, which could benefit memory-bound operations that the current benchmark set does not capture. The Quadro 2000M also has double the TMUs (32 versus 16) and double the ROPs (16 versus 8), giving it higher peak fill-rate capacity per clock cycle. Its 17.60 GTexel/s texture rate is close to the 830M's 18.40 GTexel/s despite the older architecture.

For users working with modern APIs, Vulkan support in the 830M is a decisive factor. For those relying on legacy workloads or specific MXM-based systems, the Quadro 2000M's form factor and bandwidth characteristics might be relevant, but the measured data does not show any performance scenario where the Quadro 2000M comes out ahead. The 830M wins on compute, efficiency, API support, and every recorded benchmark.