NVIDIA GeForce 820M vs Intel HD Graphics 4400

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 820M and Intel HD Graphics 4400 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 820M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• 2.3x more core clock speed: 810 MHz vs 350 MHz
• 2.2x more texture fill rate: 10 GTexel / s vs 4.6 GTexel / s
• 4.8x more pipelines: 96 vs 20
• 5.2x better floating-point performance: 240.0 gflops vs 46 gflops
• Around 30% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2789 vs 2142
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 161.305 vs 154.696
• Around 57% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 14.257 vs 9.084
• 2.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 22.768 vs 8.335
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1195 vs 817
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1447 vs 1381
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3349 vs 3044
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1195 vs 817
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1447 vs 1381
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3349 vs 3044
• 5.6x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 847 vs 152

Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4400

• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 28 nm
• 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 20 Watt vs 45 Watt
• Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 524 vs 491
• 2.4x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 276 vs 114
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 7.844 vs 7.765
• Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.958 vs 0.686

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 820M
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4400

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	491 524
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	114 276
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	2789 2142
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.765 7.844
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	161.305 154.696
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.686 0.958
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.257 9.084
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	22.768 8.335
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1195 817
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1447 1381
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3349 3044
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1195 817
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1447 1381
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3349 3044
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	847 152

Compare specifications (specs)