NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a clear victory for the NVIDIA GeForce 930M across both tested workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 930M scores 5046 against the GT 740M's 3974, a 27% advantage. The Vulkan test shows a narrower but still decisive margin, with the 930M scoring 3729 versus 3459, a 7.8% lead. The 930M wins both head-to-head comparisons, and the database shows zero wins for the GT 740M.

The OpenCL result is the standout gap. A 27% delta is substantial for two mobile GPUs that share the same 33 W TDP and the same 2 GB DDR3 memory configuration. The 930M's average benchmark score of 4388 places it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740M's 3717 average sits in the 22nd percentile. That four-point percentile difference, combined with the raw score gap, means the 930M is not just nominally faster but consistently faster across the recorded tests.

The Vulkan result deserves closer attention. A 7.8% advantage is meaningful but far smaller than the OpenCL gap. This suggests the 930M's architectural strengths are more pronounced in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, while Vulkan, which exercises graphics and compute paths more evenly, narrows the difference. Still, the 930M wins both, and the data shows no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the GT 740M takes the lead.

For context, the 930M's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce GT 645M at 4411 (a 0.5% difference), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at 4360 (0.7% ahead of the Intel part), and the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (1.2% ahead). The GT 740M, by contrast, sits near the Quadro 3000M at 3718 (a 0% delta), the GeForce 825M at 3694 (0.6% behind), and the GeForce GT 635M at 3740 (0.6% ahead). The 930M's closest competitor is the GT 645M, which it trails by only 0.5%, while the GT 740M is effectively tied with the Quadro 3000M. The positioning is telling: the 930M competes in a higher performance tier, and its 4388 average is 18% above the GT 740M's 3717.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The GeForce 930M wins decisively. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 5046 versus 3974 for the GT 740M, a 27% advantage.

Q: How do the Vulkan scores compare?

A: The GeForce 930M again wins, scoring 3729 against 3459 for the GT 740M. The margin is 7.8%, which is a solid but less dramatic lead than in OpenCL.

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance class?

A: Not according to the database. The 930M sits in the 26th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 4388, while the GT 740M is in the 22nd percentile with an average of 3717. The 930M's nearest rivals include the GT 645M, while the GT 740M is grouped with the Quadro 3000M.

Q: What is the TDP difference between them?

A: There is no difference. Both the GeForce 930M and the GeForce GT 740M have a 33 W TDP.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support: the 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The GT 740M has the higher pixel rate at 8.264 GPixel/s, compared to 4.392 GPixel/s for the 930M. Despite this, the 930M still wins both recorded benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce 930M is the faster GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average benchmark score, and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution. The 27% OpenCL lead is particularly significant, indicating a substantial compute advantage. The 7.8% Vulkan win, while smaller, still confirms the 930M's superiority in the recorded workloads.

The GT 740M's only advantages are theoretical. It has a higher pixel rate (8.264 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s), a higher texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s), and a higher base clock (980 MHz versus 549 MHz). These specifications suggest it should excel in fill-rate-limited scenarios, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into wins. The 930M compensates with a newer architecture and higher FP32 throughput in practice, as measured by the Geekbench tests.

For users choosing between these two, the recorded data points to the 930M as the better performer in general compute and graphics workloads. The GT 740M is not without merit, and its higher pixel rate could matter in specific applications, but the database's benchmark results give the 930M a clean sweep.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The most striking difference is in clocks: the GT 740M runs at a 980 MHz base clock and 1033 MHz boost, while the 930M is locked at 549 MHz for both base and boost. This is a 44% higher base clock for the GT 740M, yet the 930M still wins in benchmarks.

Memory clocks also differ. The GT 740M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the 930M runs at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective. This gives the GT 740M a higher memory bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s.

The texture unit count differs: the GT 740M has 32 TMUs, the 930M has 24. The shading units and ROPs are identical at 384 and 8, respectively. The GT 740M's pixel rate is 8.264 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 33.06 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. FP32 performance also favors the GT 740M on paper: 793.3 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS.

The slot width differs: the 930M is an IGP, while the GT 740M is an MXM Module. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 and have no power connectors. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. The die size differs slightly, with the 930M at 77 mm² and the GT 740M at 87 mm², though both pack the same 1,020 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear and significant. The 930M uses the GM108S chip on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, while the GT 740M uses the GK208 chip on Kepler 2.0. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but Maxwell is the newer design. The 930M's transistor density is 13.2M per mm² versus 11.7M for the GT 740M, reflecting Maxwell's more efficient use of the process node.

The generation gap is also notable. The 930M belongs to the GeForce 900M series, while the GT 740M is from the GeForce 700M series. The 930M's predecessor is the GeForce 800M, and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The GT 740M's predecessor is the GeForce 600M, and its successor is the GeForce 800M. This places the 930M a full generation ahead in the product stack.

API support reflects the architectural difference. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 740M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. This is a practical advantage for the 930M in modern applications that target the latest Vulkan features.

The release dates show the age gap: the GT 740M launched in June 2013, while the 930M arrived in March 2015. Both are now end-of-life, but the 930M benefits from nearly two years of architectural refinement. Maxwell's design focuses on efficiency and compute performance, which explains why the 930M wins despite lower clock speeds and lower theoretical fill rates.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930M wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its OpenCL score is 27% higher, and its Vulkan score is 7.8% higher. The database shows the 930M winning both recorded tests, with an average benchmark score of 4388 that places it in the 26th percentile. Users running OpenCL applications, such as certain rendering or compute tasks, will see the largest benefit from the 930M.

The GT 740M wins in theoretical fill-rate specifications. Its pixel rate of 8.264 GPixel/s is nearly double the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s is more than double the 930M's 13.18 GTexel/s. In scenarios that are purely fill-rate limited, such as simple 2D compositing or certain legacy graphics paths, the GT 740M could show an advantage. However, the benchmark data does not include a test that isolates this, so the practical benefit remains unverified.

For gaming and general 3D graphics, the 930M is the safer choice based on the recorded data. The Vulkan result, while closer, still favors the 930M, and Vulkan is a better proxy for modern gaming workloads than OpenCL. The GT 740M's higher clocks and fill rates do not translate into wins in the database, suggesting the 930M's Maxwell architecture delivers better real-world performance per clock.

The 930M also wins in API currency with Vulkan 1.4 support. The GT 740M's Vulkan 1.2.175 is older and may miss newer extensions. For users running the latest Vulkan titles, the 930M is the more future-proof option. The GT 740M remains a viable choice only for those who specifically need its higher fill rates, and even then, the lack of benchmark evidence makes that a speculative pick. The data says: choose the 930M.