NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 825M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 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 825M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- 5.2x lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 170 Watt
- 300x more memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
- Around 2% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 15796 vs 15412
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 January 2014 vs 10 May 2012 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt vs 170 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 15796 vs 15412 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
- Around 15% higher core clock speed: 980 MHz vs 850 MHz
- Around 4% higher boost clock speed: 980 MHz vs 941 MHz
- 3.4x more texture fill rate: 102.5 billion / sec vs 30.11 GTexel / s
- 3.5x more pipelines: 1344 vs 384
- 3.4x better floating-point performance: 2,459.5 gflops vs 722.7 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- 6.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5336 vs 784
- 2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 530 vs 261
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 980 MHz vs 850 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 980 MHz vs 941 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion / sec vs 30.11 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1344 vs 384 |
Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 gflops vs 722.7 gflops |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5336 vs 784 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 530 vs 261 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 825M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce 825M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 784 | 5336 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 261 | 530 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 15796 | 15412 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.613 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 971.208 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.281 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 40.404 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 86.208 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7038 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3686 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7038 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3686 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1798 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce 825M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Kepler |
Code name | GK208 | GK104 |
Launch date | 27 January 2014 | 10 May 2012 |
Place in performance rating | 758 | 563 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | |
Price now | $474.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 13.20 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 941 MHz | 980 MHz |
Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 980 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 722.7 gflops | 2,459.5 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 1344 |
Texture fill rate | 30.11 GTexel / s | 102.5 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 170 Watt |
Transistor count | 1300 Million | 3,540 million |
CUDA cores | 1344 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
G-SYNC support | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | Two 6-pin |
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | |
SLI options | 3-way | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 192.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256-bit GDDR5 |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |