NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 compare to the GeForce 830M in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 68.2% higher than the GeForce 830M's 4,324. The 830M trails by that same 68.2% delta, making the P1000 roughly three times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce 830M has a higher average benchmark score at 3,957, while the Quadro P1000 averages 3,163. This is counterintuitive given the P1000's large wins in individual tests, but the P1000's average is pulled down by its Passmark scores, which include results like 19 in DirectX 12 and 21 in DirectX 10.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU against all GPUs in the database?

A: The GeForce 830M sits at the 24th percentile, while the Quadro P1000 sits at the 20th percentile. Despite the P1000 winning both head-to-head benchmark tests, its overall percentile is slightly lower due to the mix of tests recorded for each card.

Q: Are there differences in memory capacity and type?

A: Yes. The GeForce 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is newer and what process node does it use?

A: The Quadro P1000 was released on 2017-02-06, while the GeForce 830M was released on 2014-03-11. The P1000 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, whereas the 830M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GeForce 830M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce 830M and Quadro P1000 belong to different NVIDIA architecture generations. The 830M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip, while the P1000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip. The 830M is part of the GeForce 800M generation, and the P1000 belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation.

The manufacturing process differs substantially. The 830M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the P1000 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process advantage contributes to a major difference in transistor density: the 830M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving a density of 13.2M transistors per mm². The P1000 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding 25.0M per mm². The P1000 has more than three times the transistor count.

The compute core configurations are drastically different. The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These figures explain the large differences in fill rates and throughput: the 830M delivers 9.200 GPixel/s pixel rate and 18.40 GTexel/s texture rate, while the P1000 delivers 47.36 GPixel/s and 59.20 GTexel/s respectively.

Clock speeds also favor the P1000. The 830M runs at a base clock of 1082 MHz with a boost of 1150 MHz, while the P1000 runs at 1266 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. Memory clocks are harder to compare directly due to different memory types: the 830M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the P1000 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The P1000 also has a wider 128-bit memory bus versus the 830M's 64-bit bus, resulting in 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 14.40 GB/s.

The FP32 compute output reflects the combined effect of more cores and higher clocks. The 830M produces 588.8 GFLOPS, while the P1000 produces 1.894 TFLOPS. The P1000 also has a recorded FP16 figure of 29.60 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while no FP16 value is listed for the 830M.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The 830M has a TDP of 33 W, is an IGP slot width, and uses no power connectors. The P1000 has a TDP of 47 W, is a single-slot card, uses no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. The bus interface also differs: the 830M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the P1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for the 830M, while the P1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The P1000 has physical dimensions of 150 mm length and 69 mm height.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The 830M is the predecessor to the GeForce 900M and successor to the GeForce 700M. The P1000 is the successor to Quadro Maxwell and predecessor to Quadro Volta.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P1000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmark tests. It wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 13,584 versus 4,324, a 68.2% advantage. It also wins Geekbench Vulkan with 7,739 versus 3,590, a 53.6% advantage. In any workload that stresses raw compute throughput, the P1000 is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The GeForce 830M, despite losing both direct comparisons, has a higher average benchmark score of 3,957 versus the P1000's 3,163. This is due to the P1000's additional Passmark test results, which include low scores such as 21 in DirectX 10, 31 in DirectX 11, 19 in DirectX 12, and 79 in DirectX 9. The 830M has no recorded Passmark scores, so its average is based only on its two Geekbench results. In terms of overall standing in the database, the 830M ranks at the 24th percentile, while the P1000 ranks at the 20th percentile.

For users prioritizing memory capacity and bandwidth, the P1000 is the better option: it has twice the memory (4 GB versus 2 GB), a wider bus, and over five times the bandwidth. For users prioritizing lower power draw or integrated form factors, the 830M's 33 W TDP and IGP slot width may be more suitable than the P1000's 47 W TDP and single-slot design.

The P1000 also offers more display connectivity with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the 830M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. This makes the P1000 more appropriate for multi-display professional setups, while the 830M is tied to the portable device it ships in.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 830M | NVIDIA Quadro P1000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 640 |

| TMUs | 16 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 47.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 59.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 588.8 GFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 33 W | 47 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2017-02-06 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs. The Quadro P1000 wins both, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the P1000 scores 13,584 against the 830M's 4,324. The delta is 68.2% in favor of the P1000. This is the largest margin recorded between the two cards. The 830M's OpenCL result places it near its closest rivals in the database: the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3,956, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3,953, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3,964. The 830M's average benchmark score of 3,957 is essentially tied with these cards, with deltas of 0% against the Radeon R5 M420, 0.1% against the GT 745M, and -0.2% against the Quadro K2000. The P1000's OpenCL score is a different class entirely.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the P1000 scores 7,739 versus the 830M's 3,590, a 53.6% advantage. This is the second and final recorded head-to-head test. The P1000's Vulkan result is more than double the 830M's score.

The P1000's average benchmark score of 3,163 is lower than the 830M's 3,957, which is explained by the P1000's Passmark results. The P1000 has nine recorded benchmark scores, including Passmark DirectX 10 at 21, DirectX 11 at 31, DirectX 12 at 19, DirectX 9 at 79, G2D at 589, G3D at 4,512, and GPU Compute at 1,891. The 830M only has two recorded benchmark scores, both Geekbench tests. The P1000's Passmark G3D score of 4,512 is actually higher than the 830M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 4,324, but the low DirectX Passmark scores drag the P1000's average down. The P1000's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 at 3,182 (-0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 at 3,210 (-1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER at 3,075 (2.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 920M at 3,287 (-3.8%). The 830M's nearest rivals are clustered around its own average score, with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3,956 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3,964 being the closest.

The data paints a clear picture: the Quadro P1000 is the dominant GPU in raw compute and graphics workloads, winning both direct comparisons by wide margins. The GeForce 830M's higher average benchmark score is an artifact of the different test suites recorded for each card, not an indication of superior performance.