GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX and NVIDIA Quadro P1000 represent two distinct generations of mobile and workstation graphics, separated by more than just a product tier. The data reveals a stark performance chasm, yet the 920MX's low-power design and the P1000's professional feature set tell a more nuanced story than raw scores alone.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results leave no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 against the 920MX's 4,068, a delta of -70.1% from the perspective of the 920MX. This means the P1000 delivers roughly 3.3 times the raw compute throughput in this API. The margin is similarly decisive in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P1000 posts 7,739 points versus 2,987 for the 920MX, a -61.4% delta. In practical terms, the P1000 is more than 2.5 times faster in this graphics workload.

These are not marginal wins. The deltas indicate a generational leap rather than a clock-speed bump. The 920MX's average benchmark score sits at 3,528, while the P1000's average is 3,163, an interesting paradox where the older, weaker card has a higher average due to fewer submitted benchmarks. However, the head-to-head results are the definitive measure, and they show the P1000 winning both tests. The 920MX has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the P1000 claims both.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells the story of two very different design philosophies. The 920MX uses the GM108S chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, packing 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die. The P1000 employs the GP107 chip on Samsung's 14 nm node, with 3,300 million transistors spread across a 132 mm² die. This is a significant architectural shift from Maxwell to Pascal, and the transistor density reflects it: 13.2M per mm² for the 920MX versus 25.0M per mm² for the P1000.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The 920MX has 256 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The P1000 more than doubles the shading units to 640, increases TMUs to 40, and quadruples ROPs to 32. The clock speeds also favor the P1000, with a base of 1266 MHz and boost of 1480 MHz, compared to the 920MX's 965 MHz base and 993 MHz boost. These are not just incremental changes; the P1000's raw throughput figures are in a different class, with FP32 performance of 1.894 TFLOPS versus 508.4 GFLOPS for the 920MX.

Memory configuration is another major divergence. The 920MX comes with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The P1000 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s, more than 5.5 times the memory bandwidth. The P1000 also supports FP16 at 29.60 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), a feature the 920MX lacks entirely. The P1000's DirectX support extends to 12 (12_1), while the 920MX is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both share OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests the Quadro P1000 is the clear winner in compute-heavy and graphics-intensive workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 13,584 is more than triple the 920MX's 4,068, making it suitable for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference. The Vulkan score of 7,739 versus 2,987 indicates superior performance in modern graphics APIs, which is relevant for CAD viewport rendering or real-time visualization.

The 920MX, however, has its own domain of advantage: power consumption. Its TDP is 16 W, compared to the P1000's 47 W. This is a 31 W difference that translates into less heat generation and longer battery life in portable devices. The 920MX uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors, while the P1000 is a single-slot card with a suggested PSU of 200 W. For a thin-and-light laptop, the 920MX's low power draw is a feature, not a bug. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is also sufficient for its bandwidth needs, whereas the P1000 uses a full x16 connection.

The P1000's display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, which is a professional workstation setup for multi-monitor configurations. The 920MX's outputs are "portable device dependent," meaning it relies on the laptop's internal display or vendor-specific connections. This makes the P1000 the only choice for driving multiple high-resolution external displays from a single card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX has an average benchmark score of 3,528, while the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 averages 3,163. This is misleading, however, because the P1000 has far more benchmark submissions across Passmark tests, whereas the 920MX only has two Geekbench entries.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P1000 in OpenCL?

A: The P1000 scores 13,584 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 70.1% higher than the 920MX's 4,068. This represents a 9,516-point absolute difference, making the P1000 roughly 3.3 times faster in this workload.

Q: Does the 920MX support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4, but its Geekbench Vulkan score is 2,987, compared to the P1000's 7,739. The P1000 is 61.4% ahead in this API.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The 920MX has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, which is more than 5.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The 920MX has a TDP of 16 W, while the P1000 has a TDP of 47 W. This makes the 920MX significantly more power-efficient for battery-powered devices.

Q: How do the two cards compare in transistor density?

A: The 920MX has a transistor density of 13.2M per mm² on 1,020 million transistors, while the P1000 has 25.0M per mm² on 3,300 million transistors. The P1000's 14 nm process allows for a much higher density.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the Quadro P1000 wins every performance test by a wide margin. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 70.1% and 61.4% higher, respectively, and it offers more than triple the shading units and more than 5.5 times the memory bandwidth. For any task that involves GPU compute, modern graphics APIs, or high-resolution texture work, the P1000 is the only rational choice. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus also make it viable for professional applications like CAD, 3D modeling, and video editing, where the 920MX's 2 GB DDR3 and 64-bit bus would be a bottleneck.

The 920MX's sole advantage is its 16 W TDP, which is less than half the P1000's 47 W. This makes it suitable for ultra-portable laptops where battery life is paramount and performance expectations are modest. Its 508.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is adequate for basic GPU acceleration, but it will struggle with anything beyond lightweight tasks. The P1000, despite being end-of-life, remains a capable workstation card with a suggested PSU of 200 W and a single-slot form factor. Users who need multi-display output will also prefer the P1000's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a over the 920MX's portable device-dependent outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The 920MX uses the GM108S chip with Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the P1000 uses GP107 with Pascal architecture on a 14 nm Samsung process. The P1000 has 3,300 million transistors versus 1,020 million, a die size of 132 mm² versus 77 mm², and a transistor density of 25.0M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the P1000: base 1266 MHz versus 965 MHz, boost 1480 MHz versus 993 MHz, and memory clock 1253 MHz versus 900 MHz. The P1000 offers 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the 920MX has 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to 256 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the 920MX.

Pixel rate is 47.36 GPixel/s on the P1000 versus 7.944 GPixel/s on the 920MX. Texture rate is 59.20 GTexel/s versus 23.83 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1.894 TFLOPS versus 508.4 GFLOPS. The P1000 supports FP16 at 29.60 GFLOPS, which the 920MX does not. TDP is 47 W versus 16 W. The P1000 is a single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the 920MX is an MXM module with no power connectors and portable device-dependent outputs.

The P1000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the 920MX uses x8. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) on the P1000 versus 12 (11_0) on the 920MX. The P1000 is 150 mm long and 69 mm high. The 920MX's dimensions are not specified. Both cards are end-of-life, but the P1000's successor is Quadro Volta, while the 920MX's successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.