A10M vs GeForce 820M
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1105 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.89 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 November 2013 (12 years ago) | February 2022 (3 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 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1635 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 366.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | 23.44 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 80 |
| TMUs | 16 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 7 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 6 MB |
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 | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 8-pin EPS |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 20 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1563 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 500.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | - |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 20 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
GeForce 820M has 900% lower power consumption.
A10M, on the other hand, has a 1900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between GeForce 820M and A10M. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce 820M is a notebook graphics card while A10M is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
