NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M are both entry-level mobile graphics solutions built on the same GK208 chip, yet their benchmark results and specifications reveal distinct positioning within the GeForce 700M and 800M generations. The data shows a narrow but consistent performance gap favoring the older GT 740M, making this comparison a study in clock speed advantages versus generational naming.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GT 740M scores 3974 against the GeForce 825M’s 3694. That is a 7.6% delta in favor of the GT 740M, a meaningful margin for two GPUs that share the same underlying architecture. In this single head-to-head test, the GT 740M wins outright, while the 825M records zero wins.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the GT 740M maintains its lead. Its average benchmark score of 3717 sits 0.6% above the 825M’s 3694. Both GPUs land at the 22nd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall. The GT 740M’s extra performance comes primarily from its higher clocks: a base of 980 MHz and boost of 1033 MHz, versus the 825M’s 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The 825M’s lower clock speeds translate directly into reduced throughput, which the benchmark data confirms.

The rival data further contextualizes this matchup. The GT 740M’s nearest rivals include the Quadro 3000M with an average score of 3718 (0% delta), the GeForce 825M at 3694 (0.6% delta), the GeForce GT 635M at 3740 (-0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (1.9% delta). The 825M’s rivals are nearly identical, with the Quadro 3000M at 3718 (-0.6% delta), the GT 740M at 3717 (-0.6% delta), the Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (1.2% delta), and the GT 635M at 3740 (-1.2% delta). The symmetry is striking: the two GPUs are bracketed by the same competitors, with only the sign of the delta changing.

The GT 740M also has a second benchmark entry, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3459, which the 825M lacks entirely. This gives the GT 740M a broader validation profile, though it does not change the head-to-head result. The Vulkan score is notably lower than the OpenCL score for the GT 740M, but no comparable data exists for the 825M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3974, which is 7.6% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 825M’s 3694.

Q: Do both GPUs share the same chip and architecture?

A: Yes, both use the GK208 chip based on Kepler 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,020 million transistors.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The GT 740M has an average benchmark score of 3717, while the 825M averages 3694, a 0.6% difference in favor of the GT 740M.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The GT 740M comes with 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the 825M has 1024 MB (1 GB) of DDR3 memory. Both use a 64-bit bus and achieve 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the GeForce 825M wins?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark test, the 825M records zero wins; the only comparison shows the GT 740M winning.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The GT 740M was released on 2013-06-19, while the 825M followed on 2014-01-26. The 825M belongs to the GeForce 800M generation, succeeding the 700M series.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the identical GK208 chip, which means the core architecture is the same. They share Kepler 2.0 architecture, a 28 nm process node from TSMC, 1,020 million transistors, and a die size of 87 mm². The transistor density is 11.7M per mm² for both. The shading units are identical at 384, as are the texture mapping units at 32 and the raster output units at 8. Neither GPU features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support.

The differences emerge in clock speeds and memory configuration. The GT 740M runs at a 980 MHz base clock and 1033 MHz boost, while the 825M is clocked lower at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. This 130 MHz base and 92 MHz boost difference is the primary architectural performance separator. The memory clock is the same for both at 900 MHz, or 1800 Mbps effective, and both use DDR3 type memory with a 64-bit bus width, yielding identical 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The GT 740M ships with 2 GB of memory, double the 825M’s 1024 MB. Both are end-of-life products with no power connectors and a 33 W TDP. The slot width differs: the GT 740M is listed as an MXM Module, while the 825M is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). Both connect via PCIe 3.0 x8 and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The API support is also identical, with DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, winner: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M. Its 7.6% OpenCL benchmark advantage and 0.6% higher average score over the 825M are consistent across every metric. The GT 740M also offers double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, which can matter for texture-heavy workloads. The higher base and boost clocks give it a raw compute advantage that translates directly into the measured performance delta.

However, the 825M is not without its own rationale. It belongs to the newer GeForce 800M generation, which means it is the successor to the 700M series. Its lower clocks may contribute to more consistent thermal behavior, though the TDP is identical at 33 W. The 825M is also listed as an IGP slot width, which suggests it may be soldered directly onto the motherboard, whereas the GT 740M is an MXM module. For a user prioritizing the newer generation name, the 825M exists as a valid option, but the benchmark data does not support it as a performance choice.

There is no scenario where the 825M wins a benchmark comparison in this dataset. The GT 740M is the superior performer in the only head-to-head test, and it holds the higher average score. The 825M’s sole advantage is its newer generation status and its IGP form factor, which are not performance metrics.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several specification fields, all stemming from the same base chip. The GT 740M has a base clock of 980 MHz versus the 825M’s 850 MHz, and a boost clock of 1033 MHz versus 941 MHz. Memory size is 2 GB on the GT 740M and 1024 MB on the 825M, though both use DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The pixel rate differs: the GT 740M achieves 8.264 GPixel/s, while the 825M reaches 7.528 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly higher on the GT 740M at 33.06 GTexel/s, compared to the 825M’s 30.11 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 793.3 GFLOPS on the GT 740M versus 722.7 GFLOPS on the 825M.

The slot width is a notable divergence: the GT 740M is an MXM Module, while the 825M is an IGP. The release dates differ, with the GT 740M launching on 2013-06-19 and the 825M on 2014-01-26. The generation also differs: the GT 740M is part of GeForce 700M, while the 825M is in GeForce 800M. The predecessor and successor chains also differ: the GT 740M succeeds GeForce 600M and is followed by GeForce 800M, while the 825M succeeds GeForce 700M and is followed by GeForce 900M.

All other specifications are identical: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, 8 ROPs, 28 nm process, 1,020 million transistors, 87 mm² die size, 33 W TDP, no power connectors, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and the same API support levels.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 740M wins in every measurable performance category. It leads in the OpenCL benchmark with a 7.6% margin, has a higher average score by 0.6%, and offers superior pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. It also provides double the memory capacity, which is an advantage for applications that exceed 1 GB of video memory usage. For gaming or compute tasks where raw throughput matters, the GT 740M is the clear choice based on the data.

The 825M wins only in the context of its generation and form factor. It is the newer product, released roughly seven months later, and belongs to the GeForce 800M series. Its IGP slot width may make it more suitable for thin-and-light systems where an MXM module is not feasible. The lower clock speeds could theoretically result in lower peak power draw, though the TDP is identical at 33 W. For a system builder constrained to an integrated solution, the 825M is the only option between the two.

There are no benchmark wins for the 825M in this dataset. Its average score of 3694 is the lower of the two, and its nearest rival list shows it trailing the GT 740M by 0.6%. The GT 740M is the superior GPU across all performance metrics, while the 825M’s value lies entirely in its newer generation label and integrated form factor. Users who prioritize benchmark results should choose the GT 740M; those who require an IGP form factor or the latest generation name have the 825M, but without any performance advantage to show for it.