NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M and GT 740M are two mobile graphics solutions from different generations of NVIDIA's laptop lineup. Based on the available benchmark data, the GT 740M emerges as the faster part in the one head-to-head test recorded, but the margin is slim enough that real-world differences will depend heavily on the specific laptop implementation. The GT 635M belongs to the GeForce 600M generation, while the GT 740M comes from the GeForce 700M generation, and both are now end-of-life products. The average benchmark scores place both GPUs at the 22nd percentile among all GPUs, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GT 740M scores 3974 against the GT 635M's 3740. This gives the GT 740M a 5.9% lead over its older sibling. While a 5.9% delta is measurable, it is not a transformative gap; in practical terms, this translates to slightly smoother frame rates in lighter titles or marginally better compute throughput in OpenCL-accelerated applications. The GT 635M's score of 3740 places it just 0.6% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694). Meanwhile, the GT 740M's 3974 OpenCL result is 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649) and 0.6% ahead of the GeForce 825M (3694).

Interestingly, the GT 740M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3459, while the GT 635M has no recorded Vulkan result. This is consistent with the GT 740M's Vulkan API support of 1.2.175, whereas the GT 635M lists no Vulkan support in its specifications. For users running Vulkan-based games or applications, the GT 740M is the only viable option between the two. The GT 635M's average benchmark score is 3740, identical to its single OpenCL result, while the GT 740M's average score is 3717—slightly lower than its OpenCL score because the Vulkan result (3459) drags the average down. This means the GT 740M's OpenCL advantage is real, but its overall average is actually 0.6% lower than the GT 635M's average, as shown in the rival data where the GT 635M is listed with a -0.6% deltaPct relative to the GT 740M's average.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is straightforward for compute workloads: the GT 740M wins the OpenCL benchmark by 5.9% and adds Vulkan support that the GT 635M lacks entirely. If you are selecting between these two for a laptop upgrade or a used-system purchase, and your applications leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the GT 740M is the superior pick. However, the difference is modest, and the GT 635M's average benchmark score (3740) is actually higher than the GT 740M's average (3717) when both Vulkan and OpenCL results are considered for the latter. This suggests that in mixed workloads or older DirectX titles, the GT 635M may hold its own.

The GT 740M's architecture is significantly newer—Kepler 2.0 on a 28 nm process versus Fermi on 40 nm—which gives it a substantial theoretical advantage in raw compute (793.3 GFLOPS FP32 vs 182.4 GFLOPS) and texture fill rate (33.06 GTexel/s vs 7.600 GTexel/s). Yet the benchmark gap is only 5.9%, indicating that the GT 635M's wider memory bus (128-bit vs 64-bit) and higher memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) help close the performance gap in real-world tests. For gamers targeting older titles or esports-level settings, either GPU will provide playable results, but the GT 740M offers more headroom for newer APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3974 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.9% higher than the GT 635M's score of 3740.

Q: Does the GT 635M support Vulkan?

A: No. The GT 635M's specification lists no Vulkan API support, while the GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3459.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The GT 635M has an average benchmark score of 3740, while the GT 740M's average score is 3717. The GT 740M's average is pulled down by its Vulkan result (3459) compared to its OpenCL result (3974).

Q: How do these GPUs compare to the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M?

A: The GT 635M is 0.6% ahead of the Quadro 3000M (which scores 3718), while the GT 740M is essentially tied with it, showing a 0% deltaPct.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GT 740M has 1,020 million transistors on a 87 mm² die, while the GT 635M has 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die. The GT 740M's transistor density is 11.7M / mm² versus 5.0M / mm² for the GT 635M.

Q: Is the GT 740M faster than the GT 635M in all benchmarks?

A: No. In the head-to-head OpenCL test, the GT 740M wins by 5.9%. However, the GT 635M's average benchmark score (3740) is higher than the GT 740M's average (3717), meaning the GT 635M has a slight edge in overall average performance when including the GT 740M's Vulkan result.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification except memory size, memory type, and TDP class. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, and their TDPs are close (35 W for the GT 635M vs 33 W for the GT 740M). The memory clock is identical at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Beyond that, the differences are stark.

The GT 635M uses a 128-bit memory bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GT 740M uses a 64-bit bus, halving bandwidth to 14.40 GB/s. The GT 635M has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, whereas the GT 740M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs—quadruple the shaders and double the TMUs and ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 1.900 GPixel/s on the GT 635M to 8.264 GPixel/s on the GT 740M, and texture rate increases from 7.600 GTexel/s to 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is dramatically higher on the GT 740M at 793.3 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS.

The GT 635M has a base clock listed as null, while the GT 740M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz. The GT 635M uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the GT 740M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The GT 635M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, whereas the GT 740M is an MXM module. Both lack power connectors and have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GT 635M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan, while the GT 740M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational. The GT 635M is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture (chip GF108), fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 585 million transistors into a 116 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.0M / mm². Fermi was NVIDIA's first truly compute-oriented architecture, but it is older and less efficient. The GT 740M, by contrast, uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture (chip GK208) on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It crams 1,020 million transistors into a smaller 87 mm² die, achieving a density of 11.7M / mm²—more than double the GT 635M's density.

Kepler 2.0 brings substantial improvements in shader efficiency and clock scaling. The GT 740M's 384 shading units are four times the GT 635M's 96, and its 32 TMUs double the GT 635M's 16. The GT 740M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Fermi-based GT 635M cannot offer. The GT 635M's architecture is tied to the GeForce 500M predecessor and leads to the GeForce 700M successor, while the GT 740M's Kepler lineage follows the GeForce 600M and precedes the GeForce 800M. The release dates reflect this gap: the GT 635M launched in March 2012, while the GT 740M arrived in June 2013. Both are end-of-life products now, but the GT 740M's newer architecture gives it better API support and higher theoretical throughput, even if the memory bandwidth deficit narrows the real-world gap.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 740M wins in raw compute and pixel throughput. Its FP32 performance (793.3 GFLOPS) is 4.3 times higher than the GT 635M (182.4 GFLOPS), and its pixel rate (8.264 GPixel/s) is likewise 4.3 times higher. This makes it the clear choice for GPGPU workloads, OpenCL compute tasks, and any application that can leverage Vulkan. The GT 740M's higher texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s vs 7.600 GTexel/s) also benefits texture-heavy scenarios like modern game engines or 3D rendering. If you are running Vulkan-based games or using OpenCL acceleration, the GT 740M is the only sensible option.

The GT 635M wins in memory bandwidth and interface width. Its 128-bit bus delivers 28.80 GB/s, double the GT 740M's 14.40 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads—older games that rely on large texture streaming, or compute tasks that hammer the memory subsystem—the GT 635M's extra bandwidth can compensate for its lower shader count. The GT 635M also uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, which provides more lanes than the GT 740M's PCIe 3.0 x8, though the newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers higher per-lane throughput. In games from the GT 635M's era (2012 and earlier), the wider bus may yield comparable or better performance despite the older architecture. The GT 635M's average benchmark score of 3740, which edges out the GT 740M's 3717, supports the notion that this GPU is not entirely outclassed in general use.

For a practical buyer, the choice hinges on software support. If Vulkan matters, pick the GT 740M. If you are locked into older DirectX 11 titles and want to maximize memory bandwidth, the GT 635M remains a capable option. The benchmark delta of 5.9% in OpenCL is real but modest, so neither GPU will dramatically transform your laptop's gaming experience—the rest of the system (CPU, RAM, cooling) will likely be the limiting factor.