GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 holds a clear, if narrow, performance advantage over the NVIDIA GeForce 825M in the only directly comparable benchmark, though the 825M counters with superior efficiency and a more modern feature set. The data shows a single head-to-head result in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GT 740 scores 3847 against the 825M’s 3694, a 4% deficit for the mobile part. That slim margin is the entire measured performance gap between these two Kepler-based GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the desktop GT 740. The GT 740 produces a score of 3847, while the 825M trails at 3694, resulting in a -4% delta for the laptop-oriented chip. This is a modest lead, not a decisive one, the 825M sits within striking distance of its desktop sibling, which is notable given the latter’s larger memory bus and faster VRAM.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how close these two are. The 825M’s average benchmark score of 3694 places it just 0.6% behind the GeForce GT 740M (3717) and the Quadro 3000M (3718), while edging out the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649) by 1.2%. The GT 740, despite its higher OpenCL score, has a lower average benchmark score of 3431 because its suite includes additional tests, Geekbench Metal (2363) and Geekbench Vulkan (4083), which drag down the arithmetic mean. In the Vulkan test, the GT 740 reaches 4083, its strongest showing, while the Metal score of 2363 is its weakest. The 825M, by contrast, has only the single OpenCL result, so its average equals 3694.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story of near-parity. The 825M sits at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740 is at the 21st percentile. That one-percentile difference is statistically trivial, confirming that in raw compute terms, neither part enjoys a meaningful lead over the other. The GT 740’s nearest rivals include the Quadro 2000M (3434, -0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, +1.2%), GeForce 920MX (3528, -2.7%), and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, +3%). The 825M’s rival list is tighter, with all four competitors within 1.2% of its score, underscoring how clustered this performance tier is.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they use different chips and different memory subsystems. The 825M is based on the GK208 chip, part of the Kepler 2.0 architecture, while the GT 740 uses the GK107 chip on the original Kepler architecture. The GT 740 packs more transistors, 1,270 million against 1,020 million, and a larger die at 118 mm² versus 87 mm². This makes the 825M denser, with 11.7 million transistors per square millimeter compared to the GT 740’s 10.8 million.

The most consequential differences lie in memory and bandwidth. The 825M comes with 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering a mere 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 740 also has 1024 MB, but it is GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 80.19 GB/s, a 5.6x advantage in raw memory throughput. This explains why the GT 740 wins in OpenCL despite identical shading unit counts. The 825M’s memory runs at an effective 1800 Mbps, while the GT 740’s operates at 5 Gbps effective.

Shader and texture hardware is identical: both have 384 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. The GT 740 doubles the ROP count, however, with 16 versus the 825M’s 8, which boosts its pixel fill rate to 7.944 GPixel/s against 7.528 GPixel/s. Texture rates are similarly close, with the GT 740 at 31.78 GTexel/s and the 825M at 30.11 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance favors the GT 740 slightly, at 762.6 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The 825M wins on power efficiency and physical integration. Its thermal design power is 33 W, less than half of the GT 740’s 64 W, and it requires no power connectors, drawing everything from the motherboard. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of "IGP," meaning it is soldered into a portable device with display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent." The GT 740, by contrast, is a single-slot desktop card measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 250 W power supply. It offers fixed display outputs: 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a.

The GT 740 wins on raw benchmark performance and memory bandwidth. Its OpenCL score is 4% higher, and its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus is in a different class from the 825M’s DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The GT 740 also has a broader API test footprint, with Vulkan and Metal results that the 825M lacks entirely. For any workload sensitive to memory throughput, such as texture-heavy scenes or higher-resolution framebuffers, the GT 740’s 80.19 GB/s bandwidth is decisive.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 scores 3847, which is 4% higher than the GeForce 825M’s 3694.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the GeForce 825M and the GeForce GT 740 have 384 shading units and 32 texture mapping units.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between them?

A: The GT 740 has 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the 825M has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card requires an external power connector?

A: The GeForce GT 740 requires a single 6-pin power connector and has a suggested 250 W PSU, whereas the 825M uses no power connectors.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GT 740 has 1,270 million transistors, while the 825M has 1,020 million.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the GeForce 825M and the GeForce GT 740 are marked as end-of-life in the database.

The Verdict

Pick the GeForce GT 740 if you need the best possible compute performance from these two. The data is unambiguous: it wins the only shared benchmark, 3847 to 3694, and its memory subsystem is vastly superior. The 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s is the single largest technical gap between these parts, and it will manifest in any memory-bound workload. The GT 740 also offers Vulkan and Metal benchmark results, 4083 and 2363 respectively, demonstrating a broader software compatibility profile. Its launch MSRP was 89 USD, but that is a historical fact, not a recommendation.

Pick the GeForce 825M if power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints. Its 33 W TDP is less than a third of the GT 740’s 64 W, and it requires no additional power cabling, making it suitable for compact portable systems. The 4% performance deficit is small enough that in many real-world scenarios, the 825M will feel equivalent to the GT 740, especially given that its nearest rivals (GT 740M, Quadro 3000M) score within 0.6% of it. The 825M also has a higher transistor density (11.7M/mm² versus 10.8M/mm²), indicating a more refined implementation of the 28 nm process.

For desktop users with a power supply and slot space, the GT 740 is the obvious choice. For laptop or embedded applications where wattage and size matter, the 825M is the only viable option, and the benchmark data suggests you are not sacrificing much performance to get it. The single OpenCL result shows a 4% gap, not a generational chasm.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce 825M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 |

|-------|---------------------|------------------------|

| Chip | GK208 | GK107 |

| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | GeForce 800M | GeForce 700 |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 87 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.7M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 850 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 941 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.528 GPixel/s | 7.944 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.11 GTexel/s | 31.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.7 GFLOPS | 762.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 64 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a |

| Length | null | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-01-26 | 2014-05-28 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 89 USD |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 3694 | 3847 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | null | 4083 |

| Geekbench Metal | null | 2363 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 3694 | 3431 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 22 | 21 |