GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M represent two distinct generations of mobile graphics from NVIDIA, with the 830M arriving roughly nine months after the 740M. Both are end-of-life products targeting thin-and-light laptops, sharing the same 28 nm TSMC process, 2 GB DDR3 memory configuration, and 64-bit memory bus. The data shows the 830M taking a clean sweep in both head-to-head benchmark tests, but the underlying architecture differences tell a more nuanced story about where each chip excels.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 4324 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GT 740M's 3974 (an 8.8% advantage), and 3590 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 3459 (a 3.8% edge). The 830M also holds a higher average benchmark score of 3957 compared to 3717 for the GT 740M.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 830M's average score of 3957 places it 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953) and 0.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964), while matching the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956) essentially exactly. The GT 740M's 3717 average puts it level with the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718), 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694), and 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649).

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but they differ in Vulkan support. The 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 740M only supports Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the newer Maxwell-based 830M has broader forward compatibility with Vulkan applications.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: Both GPUs use exactly 1,020 million transistors, but the 830M packs them into a smaller 77 mm² die versus the GT 740M's 87 mm². This gives the 830M a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm² compared to 11.7M per mm² for the GT 740M.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?

A: The GT 740M has significantly more: 384 shading units and 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), versus the 830M's 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. Both have 8 raster operation units (ROPs).

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The 830M was released on March 11, 2014, succeeding the GeForce 700M series and preceding the GeForce 900M. The GT 740M was released on June 19, 2013, succeeding the GeForce 600M and preceding the GeForce 800M series.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split here is Maxwell versus Kepler 2.0. The 830M uses the GM108 chip built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, while the GT 740M uses the GK208 chip on Kepler 2.0. This generational leap explains many of the performance characteristics observed in the benchmark data.

Despite both being manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, the Maxwell design achieves higher transistor density. The 830M fits 1,020 million transistors into 77 mm² (13.2M per mm²), while the GT 740M spreads the same transistor count across 87 mm² (11.7M per mm²). This density advantage suggests a more optimized layout and potentially better power efficiency per unit area.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The 830M runs at a 1082 MHz base clock with a 1150 MHz boost, while the GT 740M operates at 980 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. The 830M's higher clocks, combined with Maxwell's architectural efficiency, help it overcome the GT 740M's raw hardware advantage in shading units and TMUs.

The memory subsystems are identical on paper: both use 2 GB DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, running at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed. The real differences emerge in compute capabilities. The GT 740M's 384 shading units produce a theoretical FP32 throughput of 793.3 GFLOPS, while the 830M's 256 units deliver 588.8 GFLOPS. Similarly, the GT 740M's 32 TMUs give it a texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s versus the 830M's 18.40 GTexel/s. However, the 830M wins on pixel rate: 9.200 GPixel/s versus 8.264 GPixel/s.

Vulkan support also differs, with the 830M supporting version 1.4 versus the GT 740M's 1.2.175. Both share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and 33 W TDP, with the 830M coming as an IGP form factor while the GT 740M is an MXM module.

Where Each One Wins

Despite losing both head-to-head benchmarks, the GT 740M has clear theoretical advantages that could translate to wins in specific workloads. Its 384 shading units and 793.3 GFLOPS FP32 throughput make it better suited for compute-heavy tasks like general-purpose GPU processing, where raw shader count matters more than clock speed. The 32 TMUs and 33.06 GTexel/s texture rate also give it a substantial edge in texture-heavy workloads, such as certain game engines that depend heavily on texture sampling.

The 830M counters with higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency. Its 1082 MHz base clock (versus 980 MHz) and 1150 MHz boost (versus 1033 MHz) help it maintain competitive performance despite fewer execution units. The Maxwell architecture's better instruction scheduling and power management likely contribute to its wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The 830M's higher pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s versus 8.264 GPixel/s suggests it handles fill-rate-bound scenarios better, which can matter for certain rendering paths.

In Vulkan specifically, the 830M's newer API support (1.4 versus 1.2.175) gives it a compatibility advantage for modern applications. The benchmark delta of 3.8% in Vulkan is smaller than the 8.8% OpenCL gap, suggesting that the GT 740M's additional shader resources partially close the gap when the API allows more direct hardware access.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 830M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler 2.0 |

| Chip | GM108 | GK208 |

| Generation | GeForce 800M | GeForce 700M |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 1033 MHz |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.200 GPixel/s | 8.264 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.40 GTexel/s | 33.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 588.8 GFLOPS | 793.3 GFLOPS |

| Vulkan API | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Release Date | March 11, 2014 | June 19, 2013 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 700M | GeForce 600M |

| Successor | GeForce 900M | GeForce 800M |

Both GPUs share identical specs in several areas: 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, 1,020 million transistors, 2 GB DDR3 memory, 64-bit bus width, 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, 8 ROPs, 33 W TDP, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and no power connectors required.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the 830M's clearest victory, scoring 4324 against the GT 740M's 3974, an 8.8% delta. This is interesting because the GT 740M has 50% more shading units and 100% more TMUs, yet still loses by nearly nine percentage points. The data suggests that Maxwell's architectural improvements in compute efficiency more than compensate for the raw hardware deficit. The 830M's higher clock speeds (1082 MHz versus 980 MHz base) likely play a role, but the magnitude of the win points to deeper architectural gains.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably. The 830M scores 3590 versus 3459 for the GT 740M, a 3.8% difference. This closer margin hints that Vulkan's lower-level access to hardware allows the GT 740M's additional shading units to contribute more effectively. The 830M still wins, but the advantage shrinks by more than half compared to OpenCL.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the 830M's 3957 average sits 6.5% above the GT 740M's 3717. The 830M's percentile rank of 24 (versus 22 for the GT 740M) places it slightly higher among all GPUs. In the nearest rival analysis, the 830M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at a 0% delta, while the GT 740M's closest is the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, also at 0%. This suggests both occupy similar performance tiers overall, but the 830M sits at the upper edge of that tier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data consistently favors the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, which wins both head-to-head tests and holds a higher average score. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the 830M delivers a decisive 8.8% advantage. The Vulkan win, while smaller at 3.8%, still confirms the 830M's overall superiority in these tested workloads.

However, the GT 740M should not be dismissed. Its 384 shading units and 793.3 GFLOPS FP32 throughput represent substantial raw compute resources that the 830M cannot match on paper. The GT 740M's 33.06 GTexel/s texture rate is 80% higher than the 830M's, making it potentially better suited for texture-bound workloads that the benchmark suite may not fully capture. For users who know their applications rely heavily on shader count or texture sampling, the GT 740M's theoretical advantages could translate to real-world wins.

The 830M is the safer choice for most users. It wins in both available benchmarks, supports a newer Vulkan version, comes in a more power-efficient IGP form factor, and achieves this with a smaller die. The GT 740M appeals to users who need maximum shader throughput and texture processing, or who specifically require the MXM module form factor for their laptop design.

The data indicates that Maxwell's architectural efficiency overcomes Kepler's raw hardware advantage. The 830M's 8.8% OpenCL victory despite 33% fewer shading units reflects how much NVIDIA improved per-shader performance between generations. Users upgrading from a Kepler-based system to a Maxwell-based one should expect meaningful performance gains, while those considering both as new purchases should clearly prefer the 830M based on the benchmark evidence.