NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M represent two very different design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The data shows a workstation-oriented Fermi part from late 2010 going up against a mobility-focused Kepler chip from early 2013. While both are long since end-of-life, their recorded benchmark results reveal a clear hierarchy in raw compute performance, but the story becomes more nuanced when considering the architectural context and the specific workloads each was designed to handle.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, delivers a decisive result. The Quadro 2000 scores 3898 points, while the GT 730M manages only 3107 points. This translates to a 25.5% advantage for the Quadro 2000, a substantial margin that underscores the difference in their intended roles. The Quadro 2000's score is not just higher; it is a full quarter ahead of the mobile part in this compute-oriented workload.

Looking at how each card sits relative to its own peer group adds further context. The Quadro 2000 finds itself in a tight cluster. It is a mere 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (score 3883) and only 0.5% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (score 3919). The gap to the Quadro 2000D is similarly narrow at 0.8% (score 3930). This suggests that in its generation, the Quadro 2000 was positioned right at the center of a performance bracket where small architectural tweaks made little practical difference. The GeForce GT 745M is 1.4% faster, indicating that even within NVIDIA's own lineup, the Quadro 2000 was competing with parts that held a slight edge.

The GT 730M's neighborhood is different. Its average benchmark score of 3316 places it just 0.5% below the Intel HD Graphics 530 (score 3332), a result that highlights how close integrated graphics had come to entry-level discrete parts by that time. It is 0.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (score 3287) and 3.3% above the GeForce GT 640 (score 3210). The largest gap in the GT 730M's data is the 2.2% deficit to the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (score 3389). These are all sub-5% deltas, painting a picture of a card that is firmly in the middle of a crowded, low-performance tier.

The head-to-head delta of 25.5% is the most important number in the comparison. It is not a marginal win. The Quadro 2000, despite being older and built on a larger process node, clearly outmuscles the GT 730M in OpenCL compute throughput. The recorded data leaves no room for ambiguity on this point.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is limited to a single OpenCL test, so the "wins" are defined by that measurement and the architectural implications that follow from the specification sheet. The Quadro 2000 wins the compute race outright. Its 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is a direct result of its 192 shading units running at a memory clock-derived core speed. This is a raw number that the GT 730M cannot match.

The GT 730M, however, wins in several qualitative categories that are not captured by the OpenCL score. Its 33 W TDP is drastically lower than the Quadro 2000's 62 W. This makes it the clear choice for any scenario where power draw is the primary constraint. The GT 730M is also a Kepler-generation part, and its Vulkan 1.2.175 API support is a generational feature that the Fermi-based Quadro 2000 lacks entirely. The Quadro 2000's API list shows DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan entry, meaning it cannot run modern Vulkan titles or applications that rely on that API.

The memory configuration also tells a story of different priorities. The GT 730M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, which is double the Quadro 2000's 1 GB of GDDR5. However, the GDDR5 on the Quadro 2000 delivers 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the GT 730M's 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro 2000 wins on bandwidth efficiency, while the GT 730M wins on raw capacity. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, the Quadro 2000 has the edge. For workloads that require a larger frame buffer, the GT 730M is better equipped.

The pixel and texture rates follow the compute results. The GT 730M has a pixel rate of 5.800 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 23.20 GTexel/s, both slightly higher than the Quadro 2000's 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. This is a narrow win for the GT 730M in these specific rasterization throughput metrics, but it does not offset the massive compute deficit.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. For any scenario where raw compute power in OpenCL is the priority, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is the definitive choice. Its 25.5% lead over the GT 730M in the head-to-head benchmark is too large to ignore. This makes it the better option for legacy workstation applications, CAD tasks, or any compute offload that relies on FP32 throughput and high memory bandwidth.

The GT 730M is the choice for a different set of priorities. Its 33 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or systems where thermal and power budgets are tight. The 2 GB frame buffer is useful for driving higher-resolution displays, and the Vulkan support opens the door to a class of modern graphics APIs that the Quadro 2000 simply cannot access. The GT 730M also has a newer PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which offers double the bus bandwidth of the Quadro 2000's PCIe 2.0 x16 connection, even if the practical impact is limited by the card's overall performance.

The percentile data reinforces this divide. The Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 730M is at the 20th. This means both are in the lower half of the performance spectrum, but the Quadro 2000 is measurably higher. The GT 730M's nearest rival, the Intel HD Graphics 530, is an integrated solution that nearly matches its score, which signals that the GT 730M was operating at the very edge of what was considered acceptable for discrete graphics. The Quadro 2000, while also low on the absolute scale, is in a class above that.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898 points, which is 25.5% higher than the GeForce GT 730M's 3107 points.

Q: How does the GT 730M compare to integrated graphics in its benchmark?

A: The GT 730M's average benchmark score is 3316, which puts it 0.5% below the Intel HD Graphics 530 (score 3332) and 2.2% below the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (score 3389).

Q: What is the difference in video memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 interface, while the GT 730M has 28.80 GB/s from its 128-bit DDR3 interface.

Q: Does the GT 730M support a more modern graphics API than the Quadro 2000?

A: Yes, the GT 730M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000's API list does not include Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The GeForce GT 730M is rated at 556.8 GFLOPS, which is higher than the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS, despite the Quadro winning the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GT 730M has a 33 W TDP, while the Quadro 2000 has a 62 W TDP, making the GT 730M significantly more power-efficient.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm², which yields a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The GT 730M, in contrast, uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, on a 28 nm process also from TSMC. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a much smaller 118 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². This is a direct reflection of the two-year manufacturing process improvement between their release dates.

The compute cores differ significantly. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GT 730M has 384 shading units, double the Quadro's count, but the same 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This doubling of shader count is a hallmark of the Kepler architecture, which favored more, smaller cores over the larger, more complex cores in Fermi. The GT 730M's higher FP32 rating of 556.8 GFLOPS versus the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS reflects this core advantage, even though its clock speeds are lower.

The GT 730M has a base and boost clock of 725 MHz, while the Quadro 2000 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The GT 730M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The memory subsystems are also distinctly different: both use a 128-bit bus, but the Quadro pairs it with GDDR5 while the GT 730M uses DDR3. The Quadro's higher memory clock and GDDR5 technology are what give it the 41.60 GB/s bandwidth advantage.

The GT 730M supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 2000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. The GT 730M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a feature absent from the Quadro 2000's specification. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GT 730M is an MXM module, meaning it is designed for laptop integration, while the Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card with a 178 mm length (7 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches). The Quadro 2000 has a suggested PSU of 250 W and no power connectors, while the GT 730M has no suggested PSU listed.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear divergences between the two cards. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, while the GT 730M has 2048 MB of DDR3. Both have a 128-bit memory bus, but the resulting bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s for the Quadro and 28.80 GB/s for the GT 730M. The Quadro 2000's TDP is listed as 62 W, whereas the GT 730M is rated at 33 W. The Quadro's slot width is single-slot, while the GT 730M is an MXM module. The Quadro 2000 has display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the GT 730M's outputs are described as portable device dependent. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GT 730M. The production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro 2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GT 730M has no recorded launch MSRP.