NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 records an average benchmark score of 4684, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M sits at 3957. That places the P400 about 18% higher overall.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GeForce 830M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4324 versus the Quadro P400's 4249, a margin of 1.7%. It is a narrow victory, but it is a clear one for the mobile chip.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro P400 dominates the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 5119 against the GeForce 830M's 3590. That is a 42.6% advantage for the Quadro, the largest single gap in their head-to-head results.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro P400, built on Samsung's 14 nm process, packs 25.0 million transistors per mm². The GeForce 830M, using TSMC's 28 nm node, reaches only 13.2 million per mm².

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GeForce 830M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both also expose OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more ROPs?

A: The Quadro P400 has 16 ROPs, double the 8 ROPs found on the GeForce 830M. This contributes to a significantly higher pixel rate: 20.03 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 830M takes the OpenCL crown, and it does so despite being the older, smaller chip. Its score of 4324 beats the Quadro P400's 4249. The delta is small, just 1.7%, but it means that in compute workloads that lean on OpenCL, the Maxwell-based mobile GPU is not outclassed. For users running legacy OpenCL applications, the 830M holds its ground.

The Quadro P400 wins the more modern Vulkan test by a landslide. Its 5119 score versus 3590 is a 42.6% advantage, a gap that dwarfs the OpenCL difference. Vulkan is increasingly relevant for professional visualization and modern game engines, and here the Pascal architecture shows clear superiority. The P400 also wins on pixel throughput, with 20.03 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s, making it the better choice for fill-rate-bound tasks like high-resolution rendering or multi-display output.

The wins split evenly: one benchmark each. But the magnitude matters. The 830M's OpenCL lead is marginal, while the P400's Vulkan lead is massive. If a workload uses Vulkan, the P400 is the obvious pick. If it uses OpenCL, the 830M offers a slight edge, though the difference is within the range of run-to-run variance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations and different foundries. The Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip on the Maxwell architecture, built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. That chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per mm².

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm versus 28 nm. That allows the P400 to fit more than three times the transistors into a die that is less than twice the size. The Pascal chip also has a newer feature set, including support for DirectX 12 (12_1), while Maxwell on this chip tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is otherwise similar.

Memory architecture differs too. The P400 uses GDDR5, while the 830M uses DDR3. Both have a 64-bit memory bus and 2 GB capacity, but the memory type changes the bandwidth equation dramatically. The P400 achieves 32.06 GB/s, the 830M only 14.40 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ: the P400 runs at 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost, the 830M at 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost. The P400's memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the 830M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The 830M also has 256 shading units and 16 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs. That halving of ROPs explains the large pixel rate gap. The P400's FP32 throughput is 641.0 GFLOPS, versus 588.8 GFLOPS for the 830M. The P400 also lists FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), while the 830M has no FP16 entry.

Specification Differences

The database lists several fields where the two GPUs diverge. The process node differs: 14 nm for the Quadro P400, 28 nm for the GeForce 830M. Foundries differ as well: Samsung for the P400, TSMC for the 830M. Transistor counts are 3,300 million versus 1,020 million, and die sizes are 132 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor density stands at 25.0 million per mm² for the P400 and 13.2 million per mm² for the 830M.

Clock speeds differ across the board. The P400 has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost of 1252 MHz; the 830M has 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the P400 and 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the 830M. Memory type is GDDR5 for the P400 and DDR3 for the 830M. Bandwidth is 32.06 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

The ROP count is 16 for the P400 and 8 for the 830M. Pixel rate is 20.03 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 20.03 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s. FP32 is 641.0 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS. The P400 lists FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64); the 830M has no FP16 data.

TDP differs slightly: 30 W for the P400, 33 W for the 830M. The P400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The 830M is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the P400 and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 830M. Display outputs are 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the P400, while the 830M is listed as portable device dependent. The P400 has physical dimensions of 150 mm length and 69 mm height; the 830M has no dimensions listed.

DirectX support differs: the P400 supports 12 (12_1), the 830M supports 12 (11_0). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are 2017-02-06 for the P400 and 2014-03-11 for the 830M. The P400's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta. The 830M's predecessor is GeForce 700M and its successor is GeForce 900M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head results, but the nature of each result tells a different story.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GeForce 830M wins with 4324 points against the Quadro P400's 4249. The delta is -1.7% from the P400's perspective, meaning the 830M is ahead by less than 2%. This is a close contest. The 830M achieves this with older DDR3 memory and half the ROPs, which suggests its compute scheduling is efficient for this workload. The P400's GDDR5 bandwidth advantage of 32.06 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s does not translate into an OpenCL win. For users running OpenCL compute, the 830M is the slight leader, though the margin is thin enough that driver or workload variations could flip it.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro P400 wins decisively with 5119 points against 3590. That is a 42.6% advantage, the largest delta in either direction. The P400's Pascal architecture, with its newer DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level and higher pixel rate, appears to map far better onto Vulkan's explicit API model. The 830M's Maxwell chip, with DirectX 12 (11_0) and only 8 ROPs, falls behind by a wide margin. This is not a close race; it is a generational gap made visible.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the Vulkan result. The P400 averages 4684 across its benchmark entries, while the 830M averages 3957. The P400 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (avg 4657, delta 0.6%), AMD Radeon R5 M320 (avg 4657, delta 0.6%), AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (avg 4727, delta -0.9%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (avg 4628, delta 1.2%). The 830M sits at the 24th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (avg 3956, delta 0%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (avg 3953, delta 0.1%), NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (avg 3964, delta -0.2%), and AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (avg 3977, delta -0.5%).

The percentile gap is small: 27 versus 24. But the average score gap is larger, 4684 versus 3957, a difference of 727 points or roughly 18%. The P400 also shows a much wider spread between its two benchmark results, from 4249 in OpenCL to 5119 in Vulkan. The 830M's results are closer together, 4324 and 3590, which means its Vulkan score drags down its average more heavily.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a split decision with asymmetric margins. The 830M wins OpenCL by a nose; the P400 wins Vulkan by a country mile. The overall average favors the P400, and its nearest-rival cluster includes notably stronger GPUs like the GeForce GTX 970M, which it edges out by 1.2%. The 830M's cluster is populated by lower-tier parts like the Radeon R5 M420 and GeForce GT 745M, which it beats or matches by fractions of a percent. The data paints the P400 as the more capable part overall, with the 830M holding a narrow niche in OpenCL compute.