GF117 vs GeForce 820M

Place in performance ranking	994	950
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	1.55
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	N15V-GM	GF117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2014 (10 years ago)	no data
Current price	$490	$70

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GF117 has 5067% better value for money than GeForce 820M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	96	96
Core clock speed	775 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	585 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	10.00	no data
Floating-point performance	240.0 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce 820M and GF117 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Bus support	PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	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	DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

no data

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	+	no data
GameWorks	+	no data
PureVideo HD	no data	VP5

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 1.29

GF117 1.43
+10.9%

GF117 outperforms GeForce 820M by 11% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GeForce 820M 498

GF117 554
+11.2%

GF117 outperforms GeForce 820M by 11% in Passmark.

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

+0%

16−18

+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%