GeForce GT 635M vs 820A

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 820A and GeForce GT 635M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 820A
2014
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.44

GT 635M outperforms 820A by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking996995
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.612.85
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF117GF116
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date17 March 2014 (10 years ago)22 March 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 cores96Up to 144
Core clock speed775 MHzUp to 675 MHz
Boost clock speedno data753 MHz
Number of transistors585 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate12.4016.20
Floating-point processing power0.2976 TFLOPS0.3888 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1624

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 BitUp to 192bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sUp to 43.2 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray-+
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.1+

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
GT 635M 1.45
+0.7%

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
GT 635M 556
+0.2%

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 3003
+18.3%
GT 635M 2538

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD24−27
−4.2%
25
+4.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 36
+0%
36
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GeForce 820A and GT 635M compete in popular games:

  • GT 635M is 4% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.44 1.45
Recency 17 March 2014 22 March 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

GeForce 820A has an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

GT 635M, on the other hand, has a 0.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce 820A and GeForce GT 635M.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 820A
GeForce 820A
NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M
GeForce GT 635M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 42 votes

Rate GeForce 820A on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 468 votes

Rate GeForce GT 635M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.