GeForce GT 735M vs 820M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 820M and GeForce GT 735M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 820M
2013
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.28

GT 735M outperforms 820M by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1028931
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.103.64
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameGF117GK208
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date27 November 2013 (10 years ago)1 April 2013 (11 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 cores96384
Core clock speed625 MHz575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data889 MHz
Number of transistors585 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate10.0018.40
Floating-point processing power0.24 TFLOPS0.4416 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs1632

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 2.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8

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
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s14.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

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
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
GPU Boost2.0no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus++
GameWorks+-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA++

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 820M 1.28
GT 735M 1.68
+31.3%

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 820M 494
GT 735M 648
+31.2%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce 820M 1267
GT 735M 1713
+35.3%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 820M 5106
GT 735M 5688
+11.4%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce 820M 897
GT 735M 1024
+14.1%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce 820M 6074
GT 735M 6757
+11.3%

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 820M 2786
GT 735M 3749
+34.6%

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:

900p12−14
−41.7%
17
+41.7%
Full HD15
−40%
21
+40%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3%
30−35
+3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3%
30−35
+3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3%
30−35
+3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 1−2
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 1−2

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how GeForce 820M and GT 735M compete in popular games:

  • GT 735M is 42% faster in 900p
  • GT 735M is 40% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 735M is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 735M is ahead in 30 tests (64%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (36%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.28 1.68
Recency 27 November 2013 1 April 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 33 Watt

GeForce 820M has an age advantage of 7 months, and 120% lower power consumption.

GT 735M, on the other hand, has a 31.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce GT 735M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 820M in performance tests.


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 820M
GeForce 820M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M
GeForce GT 735M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 818 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 32 votes

Rate GeForce GT 735M 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.