P106-100 vs GeForce 825M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 825M with P106-100, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 825M
2014
1 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
2.03

P106-100 outperforms 825M by a whopping 718% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking880326
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.259.57
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK208GP106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date27 January 2014 (10 years ago)19 June 2017 (7 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 cores3841280
Core clock speed850 MHz1506 MHz
Boost clock speed941 MHz1709 MHz
Number of transistors915 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate30.11136.7
Floating-point processing power0.7227 TFLOPS4.375 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs3280

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data250 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2002 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s192.2 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
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.

GeForce 825M 2.03
P106-100 16.61
+718%

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 825M 782
P106-100 6408
+719%

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 HD31
−706%
250−260
+706%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%
Hitman 3 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−678%
140−150
+678%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−700%
80−85
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−706%
290−300
+706%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%
Hitman 3 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−678%
140−150
+678%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−700%
80−85
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−692%
95−100
+692%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−706%
290−300
+706%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%
Hitman 3 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−678%
140−150
+678%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−700%
80−85
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−692%
95−100
+692%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−706%
290−300
+706%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Hitman 3 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
−718%
90−95
+718%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%

This is how GeForce 825M and P106-100 compete in popular games:

  • P106-100 is 706% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.03 16.61
Recency 27 January 2014 19 June 2017
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 120 Watt

GeForce 825M has 263.6% lower power consumption.

P106-100, on the other hand, has a 718.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The P106-100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 825M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 825M is a notebook card while P106-100 is a workstation 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 825M
GeForce 825M
NVIDIA P106-100
P106-100

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.


3.8 4 votes

Rate GeForce 825M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 168 votes

Rate P106-100 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.