GeForce 820M vs GTX 980

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 with GeForce 820M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 165 Watt
28.77
+2148%

GTX 980 outperforms 820M by a whopping 2148% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1921028
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.87no data
Power efficiency12.586.16
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM204GF117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date19 September 2014 (10 years ago)27 November 2013 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores204896
Core clock speed1064 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed1216 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate155.610.00
Floating-point processing power4.981 TFLOPS0.24 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs12816

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 3.0PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)500 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s900 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.02.0
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus++
GameWorks-+
BatteryBoost+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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.

GTX 980 28.77
+2148%
GeForce 820M 1.28

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.

GTX 980 11100
+2147%
GeForce 820M 494

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.

GTX 980 37997
+644%
GeForce 820M 5106

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.

GTX 980 17605
+1290%
GeForce 820M 1267

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.

GTX 980 12938
+1342%
GeForce 820M 897

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.

GTX 980 85374
+1306%
GeForce 820M 6074

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.

GTX 980 34824
+1150%
GeForce 820M 2786

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 980 96
+1271%
GeForce 820M 7

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 HD91
+507%
15
−507%
1440p47
+2250%
2−3
−2250%
4K38
+3700%
1−2
−3700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 69
+1050%
6−7
−1050%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50
+2350%
2−3
−2350%
Battlefield 5 86
+2767%
3−4
−2767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Far Cry 5 84
+8300%
1−2
−8300%
Far Cry New Dawn 77
+2467%
3−4
−2467%
Forza Horizon 4 253
+12550%
2−3
−12550%
Hitman 3 55−60
+883%
6−7
−883%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+821%
14−16
−821%
Metro Exodus 95−100
+2350%
4−5
−2350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 70−75
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 130
+1525%
8−9
−1525%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+236%
30−35
−236%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 83
+1283%
6−7
−1283%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50
+2350%
2−3
−2350%
Battlefield 5 74
+2367%
3−4
−2367%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Far Cry 5 69
+6800%
1−2
−6800%
Far Cry New Dawn 64
+2033%
3−4
−2033%
Forza Horizon 4 230
+11400%
2−3
−11400%
Hitman 3 55−60
+883%
6−7
−883%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+821%
14−16
−821%
Metro Exodus 95−100
+2350%
4−5
−2350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 70−75
+3550%
2−3
−3550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−105
+1150%
8−9
−1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 132
+1100%
10−12
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+236%
30−35
−236%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35
+483%
6−7
−483%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50
+2350%
2−3
−2350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Far Cry 5 50
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+2850%
2−3
−2850%
Hitman 3 55−60
+883%
6−7
−883%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+821%
14−16
−821%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−105
+1150%
8−9
−1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+318%
10−12
−318%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+236%
30−35
−236%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 70−75
+3550%
2−3
−3550%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 47
+4600%
1−2
−4600%
Far Cry New Dawn 44
+2100%
2−3
−2100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Far Cry 5 33
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Forza Horizon 4 147
+2350%
6−7
−2350%
Hitman 3 35−40
+400%
7−8
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+1400%
4−5
−1400%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+2650%
2−3
−2650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+3150%
2−3
−3150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 150−160
+2517%
6−7
−2517%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 22 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24 0−1
Hitman 3 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+2317%
6−7
−2317%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+2800%
1−2
−2800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 0−1
Far Cry 5 16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 34
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%

This is how GTX 980 and GeForce 820M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980 is 507% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980 is 2250% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980 is 3700% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 980 is 12550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 980 surpassed GeForce 820M in all 47 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 28.77 1.28
Recency 19 September 2014 27 November 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 15 Watt

GTX 980 has a 2147.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GeForce 820M, on the other hand, has 1000% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 820M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop card while GeForce 820M is a notebook one.


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 GTX 980
GeForce GTX 980
NVIDIA GeForce 820M
GeForce 820M

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.


4.3 1394 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 818 votes

Rate GeForce 820M 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.