NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two NVIDIA parts is clean and decisive. The GeForce 830M takes the OpenCL compute workload, while the GeForce GT 740 answers back in Vulkan. Each card wins exactly one head-to-head test, so picking a victor depends entirely on the API and workload you care about.

For OpenCL compute, the 830M is the stronger part. It scores 4324 against 3847 for the GT 740, a 12.4% lead. That is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial margin in raw compute throughput. If your application leans on OpenCL for general-purpose GPU work, the mobile chip is the one that pulls ahead despite its smaller physical footprint and lower power envelope.

The GT 740 flips the script in Vulkan. It posts 4083 versus 3590 for the 830M, which translates to a 12.1% advantage for the desktop card. Vulkan tends to reward the higher shading unit count and wider memory bus, and the data reflects that. For anyone running Vulkan-based games or modern compute APIs, the GT 740 is the more capable option.

Looking at the broader database context, the 830M sits at the 24th percentile among all GPUs, while the GT 740 lands at the 21st percentile. Their average benchmark scores, 3957 for the 830M and 3431 for the GT 740, show the mobile part holding a higher overall average. However, that average is pulled up by the 830M's strong OpenCL result and the fact that the GT 740 has a lower Vulkan-adjacent baseline in its own average score calculation. The 830M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964, while the GT 740's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX at 3528. Neither card is a performance kingpin; both occupy the lower-middle segment of the database.

Architecture Differences

These are two different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The 830M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108 chip, while the GT 740 uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process node, so the underlying fabrication technology is identical. The transistor counts tell a different story: the GT 740 packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the 830M has 1,020 million on a much smaller 77 mm² die. That gives the 830M a higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² compared to 10.8M per mm² for the GT 740. Maxwell was a density-focused design, and this pair shows it clearly.

The GT 740 compensates with sheer resource count. It has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 830M counters with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In every single unit category, the GT 740 has exactly double the TMUs and ROPs, and 50% more shading units. That resource advantage shows up in texture fill rate and geometry throughput. The GT 740 reaches 31.78 GTexel/s of texture rate versus 18.40 GTexel/s for the 830M, a 73% advantage. Pixel rate is closer: 7.944 GPixel/s for the GT 740 against 9.200 GPixel/s for the 830M. The 830M actually wins pixel throughput despite having half the ROPs, which points to higher clock efficiency in the Maxwell architecture.

Memory architecture is where these two diverge sharply. The 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 740 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s. That is a 5.6x bandwidth advantage for the GT 740. The 830M has double the capacity but a fraction of the bandwidth. For texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution framebuffers, the GT 740's memory subsystem is the clear winner. The 830M compensates with a boost clock of 1150 MHz against the GT 740's unspecified clock, but clock speed alone cannot bridge the memory bandwidth gap.

The API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 740 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. That is a meaningful difference for modern Vulkan applications, though the GT 740's superior hardware resources still carry it to a Vulkan benchmark win.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these cards, and each one has a clear winner. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 830M scores 4324 against 3847 for the GT 740, a 12.4% delta in favor of the mobile chip. This is the 830M's strongest result in the entire database. It also places the 830M above its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M420 which scores 3956, by a comfortable margin. The GT 740's OpenCL score of 3847 puts it just below that same rival, so the desktop card is not merely losing to the 830M; it is also losing to the 830M's immediate competition.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The GT 740 scores 4083 against 3590 for the 830M, a 12.1% delta in the desktop card's favor. This is the GT 740's best benchmark result across its recorded tests. The 830M's Vulkan score of 3590 is actually below its own OpenCL score, which is unusual and suggests the Maxwell chip's Vulkan driver path is less efficient than its OpenCL path. The GT 740's Vulkan result also exceeds its own OpenCL score, showing the opposite trend: Kepler handles Vulkan better than OpenCL in this pairing.

The two benchmark results are nearly mirror images of each other. In OpenCL, the 830M leads by 12.4%. In Vulkan, the GT 740 leads by 12.1%. The symmetry is striking and suggests that architecture-specific optimization matters more than raw hardware resources in this matchup. The GT 740 has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and vastly more memory bandwidth, yet it cannot convert that hardware advantage into an OpenCL win. Conversely, the 830M's Maxwell efficiency and higher pixel rate cannot overcome the GT 740's Vulkan advantage.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split. The 830M averages 3957 across its two tests, while the GT 740 averages 3431 across its three tests. The GT 740's average is dragged down by its Geekbench Metal score of 2363, a test that the 830M does not have recorded. If you ignore Metal, the GT 740's OpenCL and Vulkan scores average to 3965, nearly identical to the 830M's 3957. The Metal result is an outlier that skews the GT 740's overall standing in the database.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet separates these two cards into different classes. The 830M is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, a 33 W TDP, and a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. It is designed to be soldered directly to a laptop motherboard. The GT 740 is a single-slot card measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) long, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU rating. The 830M needs no external power; the GT 740 needs a power supply rated at 250 W minimum and a free 6-pin connector. The 64 W TDP of the GT 740 is nearly double the 33 W of the 830M.

Memory is the biggest spec difference. The 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 740 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 740 has 5.6x more bandwidth but half the capacity. For modern games that want more than 1 GB of VRAM, the 830M has the capacity advantage, but the GT 740's GDDR5 speed makes it far more efficient at moving texture data.

Compute resources differ across the board. The GT 740 has more of everything except pixel rate. The 830M produces 7.944 GPixel/s, the 830M produces 9.200 GPixel/s. FP32 output favors the GT 740 at 762.6 GFLOPS versus 588.8 GFLOPS for the 830M, a 30% lead. Texture rate also sides with the GT 740 at 31.78 GTexel/s against 18.40 GTexel/s. The 830M's transistor density of 13. There is 13.2M per mm², die size of 77 mm², and transistor count of 1,020 million all favor the 830M. The GT 740 has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die with 10.8M per mm² density.

The 830M has no base clock or boost clock recorded in the database. The GT 740 has only a memory clock recorded at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. The 830M does have base and boost clocks: 1082 MHz and 1150 MHz respectively, with a memory clock of 900 MHz and 1800 Mbps effective. The GT 740's core clocks are simply absent from the database, so direct clock-to-clock comparison is not possible from the recorded data. Display outputs also differ: the 830M is "Portable Device Dependent" while the GT 740 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a.

The 830M's release date is March 11, 2014, and the GT 740 follows on May 28, 2014. The 830M's predecessor is GeForce 700M with successor GeForce 900M; the GT 740's predecessor is GeForce 600 with successor GeForce 900. The GT 740 has a launch MSRP of 89 USD, while the 830M has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The GeForce 830M scores 4324 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3847 for the GT 740, a 12.4% lead for the 830M.

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan?

A: The GeForce GT 740 scores 4083 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 3590 for the 830M, a 12.1% advantage for the GT 740.

Q: Why does the GT 740 have a lower average benchmark score despite winning Vulkan?

A: The GT 740's average of 3431 includes a Geekbench Metal score of 2363, which is well below its other results. The 830M has no Metal score recorded, so its average of 3957 only reflects OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 740 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The 830M has a 33 W TDP with no power connectors. The GT 740 has a 64 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GT 740 has 384 shading units compared to 256 for the 830M, a 50% advantage for the desktop card.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for two different use cases. If your priority is OpenCL compute in a low-power mobile form factor, the GeForce 830M is the better pick. It wins the OpenCL benchmark by 12.4%, draws less power at 33 W versus 64 W, requires no external power connector, and offers 2 GB of memory capacity. It also has a higher average benchmark score at 3957 versus 3431, and it sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs at 24th versus 21st. For a laptop GPU that needs to handle compute tasks without melting the chassis, the 830M is the sensible choice.

If your priority is Vulkan performance or memory bandwidth, the GeForce GT 740 is the stronger option. It wins the Vulkan benchmark by 12.1%, delivers 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth against 14.40 GB/s, and has double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs of the 830M. It also supports Vulkan, though at a lower version (1.2.175 versus 1.4). The GT 740 requires a 250 W PSU and a 6-pin connector, so it is only suitable for desktop builds with adequate power delivery.

The symmetry of the benchmark results makes a unified verdict impossible. One card wins compute, the other wins graphics API performance. The 830M's higher average score and percentile ranking suggest it is the more consistent performer overall, but the GT 740's Vulkan win and massive bandwidth advantage make it the better choice for gamers using modern APIs. If you are building a desktop with a dedicated PSU, the GT 740's hardware resources and Vulkan performance justify its 89 USD launch MSRP. If you are working within a mobile platform, the 830M's efficiency and OpenCL strength are the deciding factors. Neither card is a clear winner across all metrics, so the correct choice depends on the specific workload and platform constraints.