GeForce 820M vs Quadro P5000

Place in the ranking	167	1038
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.64	no data
Power efficiency	12.54	5.87
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GP104	GF117
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	27 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$2,499	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 cores	2048	96
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1733 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	277.3	10.00
Floating-point processing power	8.873 TFLOPS	0.24 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	160	16

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 support	no data	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	no data

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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	14.4 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	No outputs
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost	no data	2.0
Optimus	+	+
GameWorks	-	+
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	+

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.

Quadro P5000 32.80
+2463%

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.

Quadro P5000 12608
+2463%

GeForce 820M 492

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.

Quadro P5000 52839
+1803%

GeForce 820M 2776

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 HD	98 +553%	15 −553%
4K	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	25.50	no data
4K	62.48	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Elden Ring	110−120	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +9300%	1−2 −9300%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +1800%	8−9 −1800%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +2633%	3−4 −2633%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1017%	6−7 −1017%
Valorant	130−140 +2520%	5−6 −2520%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +9300%	1−2 −9300%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Dota 2	100−110 +10600%	1−2 −10600%
Elden Ring	110−120	0−1
Far Cry 5	85−90 +790%	10−11 −790%
Fortnite	150−160 +2940%	5−6 −2940%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +1800%	8−9 −1800%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +10600%	1−2 −10600%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +2633%	3−4 −2633%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +1221%	14−16 −1221%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1017%	6−7 −1017%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +1500%	7−8 −1500%
Valorant	130−140 +2520%	5−6 −2520%
World of Tanks	270−280 +889%	27−30 −889%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +9300%	1−2 −9300%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Dota 2	100−110 +10600%	1−2 −10600%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +790%	10−11 −790%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +1800%	8−9 −1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +1221%	14−16 −1221%
Valorant	130−140 +2520%	5−6 −2520%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 +2800%	2−3 −2800%
Elden Ring	60−65 +3050%	2−3 −3050%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +2850%	2−3 −2850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +2088%	8−9 −2088%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
World of Tanks	210−220 +2900%	7−8 −2900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +3050%	2−3 −3050%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +1960%	5−6 −1960%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +2933%	3−4 −2933%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +3550%	2−3 −3550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +2550%	2−3 −2550%
Valorant	95−100 +1500%	6−7 −1500%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Dota 2	60−65 +281%	16−18 −281%
Elden Ring	27−30	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +307%	14−16 −307%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +3333%	3−4 −3333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +307%	14−16 −307%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Dota 2	60−65 +281%	16−18 −281%
Far Cry 5	45−50	0−1
Fortnite	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +2500%	2−3 −2500%
Valorant	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%

This is how Quadro P5000 and GeForce 820M compete in popular games:

Quadro P5000 is 553% faster in 1080p
Quadro P5000 is 3900% faster in 4K

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

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 10600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Quadro P5000 surpassed GeForce 820M in all 41 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.80	1.28
Recency	1 October 2016	27 November 2013
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	15 Watt

Quadro P5000 has a 2462.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 820M, on the other hand, has 566.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 820M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation 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.