RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell vs GeForce 820M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 820M with RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 820M
2013
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.16

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell outperforms 820M by a whopping 6353% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking108511
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.15
Power efficiency5.899.51
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Blackwell 2.0 (2025)
GPU code nameGF117GB202
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date27 November 2013 (11 years ago)18 March 2025 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$8,565

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores9624064
Core clock speed625 MHz1590 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2617 MHz
Number of transistors585 million92,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt600 Watt
Texture fill rate10.001,968
Floating-point processing power0.24 TFLOPS126 TFLOPS
ROPs8192
TMUs16752
Tensor Coresno data752
Ray Tracing Coresno data188

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 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Lengthno data304 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 16-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR7
Maximum RAM amount1 GB96 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit512 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s1.79 TB/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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort 2.1b

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.4
CUDA+12.0
DLSS-+

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.

GeForce 820M 1.16
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell 74.85
+6353%

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 485
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell 31366
+6367%

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 HD16
−6150%
1000−1050
+6150%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data8.57

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Fortnite 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−6329%
450−500
+6329%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−6011%
550−600
+6011%
Valorant 30−35
−6306%
2050−2100
+6306%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
−6329%
1800−1850
+6329%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Dota 2 16−18
−6150%
1000−1050
+6150%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Fortnite 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−6329%
450−500
+6329%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−6011%
550−600
+6011%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%
Valorant 30−35
−6306%
2050−2100
+6306%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Dota 2 16−18
−6150%
1000−1050
+6150%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−6329%
450−500
+6329%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−6011%
550−600
+6011%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%
Valorant 30−35
−6306%
2050−2100
+6306%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
−6329%
450−500
+6329%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−6150%
750−800
+6150%
Valorant 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6233%
950−1000
+6233%
Valorant 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%

This is how GeForce 820M and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell compete in popular games:

  • RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 6150% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.16 74.85
Recency 27 November 2013 18 March 2025
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 96 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 600 Watt

GeForce 820M has 3900% lower power consumption.

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, on the other hand, has a 6352.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 820M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 820M is a notebook graphics card while RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is a workstation one.

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 RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell

Other comparisons

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.


3 912 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 27 votes

Rate RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 820M or RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.