NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M beats the GeForce GT 730M across every benchmark in the database, but the margin tells a more interesting story than a clean sweep suggests. In OpenCL compute the Maxwell-based 830M is a runaway winner, while the Vulkan result is nearly a tie, and the older Kepler part retains clear hardware advantages in memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and render output capacity. This is a comparison where the newer architecture's efficiency wins on measured scores, yet the silicon itself tells a tale of trade-offs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two tests are recorded for both GPUs, and the GeForce 830M takes both.

The decisive result is Geekbench OpenCL: 4324 points for the 830M versus 3107 for the GT 730M, a 39.2 percent advantage. That is not a rounding-error win, it is a generational leap in compute. The 830M delivers 588.8 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput against 556.8 GFLOPS for the GT 730M, and the OpenCL score amplifies that raw ~6 percent shading advantage into a much larger real-world gap. Maxwell's architecture is extracting disproportionately more compute work from modestly better theoretical hardware, which is exactly what a newer generation is supposed to do.

Geekbench Vulkan tells the opposite story about the size of the gap: 3590 for the 830M versus 3524 for the GT 730M, a 1.9 percent difference. In graphics API workloads the two GPUs are effectively equals despite the 830M's compute dominance. This makes sense given the spec sheet: the GT 730M holds 28.80 GB/s of memory bandwidth against 14.40 GB/s for the 830M, double the bandwidth, and bandwidth constraints bite hardest in graphics rendering. The Kepler part's wider 128-bit bus appears to neutralize most of Maxwell's compute advantage once the workload shifts from pure number-crunching to drawing frames.

Context from the percentile data reinforces where each GPU sits. The 830M lands in the 24th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 3957, statistically indistinguishable from the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (avg score 3956, 0 percent delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.1 percent), the Quadro K2000 (3964, -0.2 percent), and the Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, -0.5 percent). The GT 730M sits in the 20th percentile with an average score of 3316, bracketed by the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, -0.5 percent), the GeForce 920M (3287, 0.9 percent), the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, -2.2 percent), and the GeForce GT 640 (3210, 3.3 percent). Both are entry-level mobile parts by any measure, but the 830M keeps company one tier higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The GeForce 830M. It wins both recorded benchmarks, with a 39.2 percent lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 1.9 percent edge in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 3957 exceeds the GT 730M's 3316.

Q: Does the GT 730M have any hardware advantages?

A: Yes. It offers 28.80 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s, 32 texture mapping units versus 16, and 16 render output units versus 8. Its texture rate of 23.20 GTexel/s also exceeds the 830M's 18.40 GTexel/s. None of this translated into benchmark wins, but it explains the narrow Vulkan margin.

Q: How do their power profiles compare?

A: Both carry an identical 33 W TDP and neither requires external power connectors. Power efficiency per unit of performance therefore favors the 830M, which delivers higher scores at the same thermal envelope.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life. The GT 730M was released on January 19, 2013, and the 830M followed on March 11, 2014, roughly fourteen months later.

Q: What API support do they provide?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (feature level 11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 830M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the GT 730M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, giving the newer card a newer graphics API baseline.

Q: How do they compare to the broader GPU market?

A: The 830M ranks in the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database; the GT 730M ranks in the 20th. Both are entry-level mobile parts positioned near integrated graphics territory.

Architecture Differences

These are two consecutive NVIDIA mobile generations built on the same process. The GT 730M uses the GK107 chip on the Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 600M lineage, while the 830M uses the GM108 chip on Maxwell, the architecture NVIDIA introduced to succeed Kepler in this segment. The GT 730M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, which the GeForce 800M then succeeded.

Both chips are fabbed at TSMC on a 28 nm process, so node shrink contributes nothing to the 830M's wins. Instead, Maxwell extracts its advantage from design efficiency. The numbers make this plain. The GM108 packs 1,020 million transistors into 77 mm², a density of 13.2M per mm². The GK107 uses 1,270 million transistors across 118 mm² at 10.8M per mm². The 830M does more with roughly 250 million fewer transistors and a die 41 mm² smaller, which is the architectural story in miniature: less silicon, more performance, same 33 W TDP.

Clock behavior also differs sharply. The GK107 runs at a flat 725 MHz for both base and boost, with no dynamic uplift available. The GM108 runs at a 1082 MHz base and boosts to 1150 MHz, a substantial frequency advantage that directly feeds its 588.8 GFLOPS FP32 figure. Kepler counters with more hardware units, 384 shading units and 32 TMUs against 256 and 16, but at 725 MHz those wider resources net out slightly behind in FP32 compute and well behind in measured OpenCL results.

Neither GPU has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for this era. Both use DDR3 memory clocked at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the bus implementations diverge: a 128-bit bus on the Kepler part versus 64-bit on the Maxwell part, producing the 2x bandwidth gap noted above. The 830M compensates with a higher pixel fill rate, 9.200 GPixel/s against 5.800 GPixel/s, courtesy of its higher clocks, while the GT 730M's 16 ROPs versus 8 are undercut by frequency in the final figure.

Specification Differences

The fields where these two GPUs differ:

• Chip: GM108 (830M) versus GK107 (GT 730M)
• Architecture: Maxwell versus Kepler
• Generation: GeForce 800M versus GeForce 700M
• Release date: March 11, 2014 versus January 19, 2013
• Transistors: 1,020 million versus 1,270 million
• Die size: 77 mm² versus 118 mm²
• Transistor density: 13.2M/mm² versus 10.8M/mm²
• Base clock: 1082 MHz versus 725 MHz
• Boost clock: 1150 MHz versus 725 MHz
• Bus width: 64 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s
• Shading units: 256 versus 384
• TMUs: 16 versus 32
• ROPs: 8 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 9.200 GPixel/s versus 5.800 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 23.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 588.8 GFLOPS versus 556.8 GFLOPS
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Slot width: IGP versus MXM Module
• Predecessor: GeForce 700M versus GeForce 600M
• Successor: GeForce 900M versus GeForce 800M

Everything else is shared ground: NVIDIA manufacturer, TSMC 28 nm foundry, 2 GB DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), 33 W TDP, no power connectors, DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, portable-device-dependent display outputs, and end-of-life status.

The Verdict

The GeForce 830M is the pick, and the recorded data makes that call straightforward. It won both head-to-head benchmarks, holds the higher average score (3957 versus 3316), ranks four percentile points higher against the full database, matches the rival's 33 W TDP exactly, and supports a newer Vulkan version. For a mobile buyer choosing between laptops carrying these parts, the 14-month-newer Maxwell design is the stronger all-around GPU by every measured metric.

The GT 730M's case rests entirely on unmeasured hardware advantages: double the memory bandwidth, double the TMUs and ROPs, a wider PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus x8, and a higher texture rate. Those traits kept it within 1.9 percent in the Vulkan test, so for workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the gap is functionally negligible. But "negligible gap in one test" is not a win, and the 39.2 percent OpenCL deficit is anything but negligible. If any compute, OpenCL, or GPU-accelerated task is on the agenda, the 830M is in a different league.

Where Each One Wins

GeForce 830M wins:

• OpenCL and general compute. A 39.2 percent victory in Geekbench OpenCL (4324 versus 3107) is the headline number of this comparison. Any workload leaning on compute throughput, from GPU-accelerated applications to OpenCL-based processing, strongly favors the Maxwell card.
• Power-equivalent performance. Identical 33 W TDP and higher scores mean better performance per watt, which matters in thermally constrained laptops.
• Pixel throughput. 9.200 GPixel/s versus 5.800 GPixel/s favors the 830M for fill-rate-sensitive rendering.
• API currency. Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175 gives the 830M the more modern software baseline.

GeForce 730M wins:

• Memory bandwidth. 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, the only outright doubling in this comparison. Texture-heavy and bandwidth-hungry graphics workloads benefit here, and the near-tie Vulkan score (3524 versus 3590) shows this advantage is real in practice.
• Texture throughput. 23.20 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s, from its 32 TMUs.
• Interface width. PCIe 3.0 x16 versus x8 offers more host bandwidth, relevant if data transfer over the bus is a bottleneck.

The overall balance is lopsided in measured results: two wins for the 830M, none for the GT 730M. The Kepler part's strengths are structural, visible in the spec sheet and faintly visible in the Vulkan score, but the database records no test where they convert into victory.