GeForce 825M vs GeForce RTX 4070
GeForce 825M
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 4070
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce 825M is positioned at rank #119 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 825M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce RTX 4070
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce RTX 4070 is significantly newer (2023 vs 2015). The GeForce RTX 4070 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 825M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 4070 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3437.3% higher G3D Mark score and 500% more VRAM (12 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 825M.
| Insight | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3437.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3437.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (12 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | Standard Size (304mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 4070 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $550 (vs $30), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 92.9% better value per dollar than the GeForce 825M.
| Insight | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+92.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($550) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 825M and GeForce RTX 4070
GeForce 825M
The GeForce 825M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 26 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1071 MHz to 1176 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 761 points.
GeForce RTX 4070
The GeForce RTX 4070 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 1920 MHz to 2475 MHz. It has 5888 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,919 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 825M scores 761 versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 26,919 — the GeForce RTX 4070 leads by 3437.3%. The GeForce 825M is built on Maxwell while the GeForce RTX 4070 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 28 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 825M) vs 5,888 (GeForce RTX 4070). Raw compute: 0.9032 TFLOPS (GeForce 825M) vs 29.15 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4070). Boost clocks: 1176 MHz vs 2475 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 761 | 26,919+3437% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 5888+1433% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9032 TFLOPS | 29.15 TFLOPS+3127% |
| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | 2475 MHz+110% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 184+475% |
| L1 Cache | 0.19 MB | 5.8 MB+2953% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 36 MB+3500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4070 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce 825M lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce 825M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4070 has 12 GB. The GeForce RTX 4070 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 825M) vs 36 MB (GeForce RTX 4070) — the GeForce RTX 4070 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 12 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6X |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 504 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 192-bit+50% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 36 MB+3500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (GeForce 825M) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 4070). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0 | 12.2+11% |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1 (GeForce 825M) vs 8th Gen NVENC (2x) (GeForce RTX 4070). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 (GeForce 825M) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (GeForce RTX 4070).
| Feature | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1 | 8th Gen NVENC (2x) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 825M draws 33W versus the GeForce RTX 4070's 200W — a 143.3% difference. The GeForce 825M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 825M) vs 650W (GeForce RTX 4070). Power connectors: Legacy vs 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 304mm, occupying 0 vs 3 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-84% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-46% | 650W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | 8-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 304mm |
| Height | 0mm | 137mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 3 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 23.1 | 134.6+483% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 825M costs 94.5% less ($520 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 25.4 (GeForce 825M) vs 48.9 (GeForce RTX 4070) — the GeForce RTX 4070 offers 92.5% better value. The GeForce RTX 4070 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce 825M | GeForce RTX 4070 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-95% | $550 |
| Performance per Dollar | 25.4 | 48.9+93% |
| Codename | GM108 | AD104 |
| Release | August 26 2015 | April 12 2023 |
| Ranking | #768 | #32 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 825M and GeForce RTX 4070
