GeForce 615 vs 820A

Place in the ranking	995	1026
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	6.58	1.86
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GF117	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	17 March 2014 (10 years ago)	15 May 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	96	48
Core clock speed	775 MHz	660 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	49 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.40	5.280
Floating-point processing power	0.2976 TFLOPS	0.1267 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interface

PCIe 2.0 x16

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	28.8 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	2.1	2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 820A 1.44
+8.3%

GeForce 615 1.33

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 820A 555
+8%

GeForce 615 514

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce 820A 3032
+129%

GeForce 615 1322

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.44	1.33
Recency	17 March 2014	15 May 2012
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	49 Watt

GeForce 820A has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 226.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce 820A and GeForce 615.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.