GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is in a different performance class than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M, delivering a dominant victory in every shared benchmark. The data shows a decisive generational and architectural leap, with the Quadro P1000 offering over four times the OpenCL compute throughput and more than double the Vulkan performance of the older GT 730M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 against the GT 730M’s 3,107. That is a delta of -77.1% for the GT 730M, meaning the Quadro P1000 is roughly 337% faster in raw compute workloads. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete overhaul of processing capability. The Quadro P1000’s advantage stems from its 640 shading units running at a boost clock of 1480 MHz, compared to the GT 730M’s 384 shading units at a fixed 725 MHz. The result is a massive difference in FP32 throughput: 1.894 TFLOPS versus 556.8 GFLOPS.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the gap narrows somewhat but remains lopsided. The Quadro P1000 posts 7,739 points, while the GT 730M manages 3,524, a delta of -54.5%. This indicates that while the GT 730M’s Kepler architecture can handle modern graphics APIs, it does so with far less efficiency. The Quadro P1000’s Pascal architecture, with its higher clock speeds and greater memory bandwidth, allows it to feed its shader cores much more effectively. The GT 730M’s memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s is a severe bottleneck compared to the Quadro P1000’s 80.19 GB/s, which explains why the Vulkan advantage, while still large, is smaller than the pure compute advantage seen in OpenCL.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GT 730M’s average benchmark score is 3,316, placing it in the 20th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel HD Graphics 530, which scores 3,332 (a delta of -0.5%), putting the GT 730M essentially at parity with that integrated solution. The Quadro P1000, despite its overwhelming head-to-head win, has an average benchmark score of only 3,163, also in the 20th percentile. This is because its benchmark suite includes several Passmark tests where it scores very low (e.g., Passmark DirectX 10 at 21, DirectX 12 at 19), which drags down its average. The head-to-head tests, however, are unambiguous: in the two tests both cards took, the Quadro P1000 won both, with winsB equal to 2 and winsA equal to 0.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 730M does not win a single shared benchmark. Its only potential advantage lies in its lower power draw. With a TDP of 33 W, it consumes significantly less power than the Quadro P1000’s 47 W. This makes the GT 730M suitable for legacy portable systems where thermal and power constraints are paramount, but the performance penalty is severe. The GT 730M is also an end-of-life product from 2013, meaning it is only relevant for older systems that require a drop-in MXM module replacement.

The Quadro P1000 wins every performance metric that matters. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is double the GT 730M’s 2 GB of DDR3, and its bandwidth is nearly three times higher. In practical terms, this allows the Quadro P1000 to handle larger textures and more complex scenes without stuttering. The Quadro P1000’s pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s and texture rate of 59.20 GTexel/s dwarf the GT 730M’s 5.800 GPixel/s and 23.20 GTexel/s, making it vastly superior for any graphics-intensive task, from CAD modeling to video editing. The Quadro P1000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GT 730M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, a difference that matters for newer applications and games.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent completely different eras of GPU design. The GT 730M uses the GK107 chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 1,270 million on a die size of 118 mm². This yields a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². The Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, packing 3,300 million transistors onto a 132 mm² die, for a density of 25.0M / mm². This is a fundamental shift in manufacturing efficiency, allowing the Pascal chip to fit more than 2.5 times the transistors into a similar physical space.

The memory subsystem is another major divergence. The GT 730M uses DDR3 memory running at an effective 1800 Mbps, while the Quadro P1000 uses GDDR5 at an effective 5 Gbps. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the faster GDDR5 standard gives the Quadro P1000 a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus the GT 730M’s 28.80 GB/s. This is a critical difference for memory-bound workloads. The core configurations also differ: the GT 730M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro P1000 also has a higher base clock (1266 MHz) and boost clock (1480 MHz), whereas the GT 730M is locked at 725 MHz with no boost capability.

The feature sets are also distinct. The Quadro P1000 is a professional workstation card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GT 730M’s outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in. The Quadro P1000 also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0). The physical form factors differ as well: the GT 730M is an MXM module, while the Quadro P1000 is a single-slot card measuring 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with a suggested PSU of 200 W.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is the superior product for any workload that requires graphics or compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by wide margins, offers triple the memory bandwidth, and has nearly double the shading units. The Quadro P1000 is the clear choice for professionals who need reliable, fast rendering for CAD, DCC, or scientific visualization, where its 4 GB GDDR5 buffer and high pixel rate will prevent bottlenecks.

The GT 730M should only be considered by users maintaining legacy systems that specifically require an MXM module with a 33 W TDP. It offers no performance advantage over even modern integrated graphics, as evidenced by its near-parity with the Intel HD Graphics 530 (delta of -0.5%). For any new build or upgrade, the Quadro P1000 is the only rational option from these two. The Quadro P1000’s average benchmark score of 3,163 is misleadingly low due to its weak Passmark DirectX scores, but the Geekbench results show its true potential. The GT 730M’s average score of 3,316 is flattering, as it is propped up by a single decent Vulkan score. When directly compared, the Quadro P1000 is simply in another league.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is dramatically faster, scoring 13,584 versus the GT 730M’s 3,107, a delta of -77.1% for the GT 730M.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the Quadro P1000 have compared to the GT 730M?

A: The Quadro P1000 has 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly three times the GT 730M’s 28.80 GB/s.

Q: What are the architecture names for these two GPUs?

A: The GT 730M uses the Kepler architecture (chip GK107), while the Quadro P1000 uses the Pascal architecture (chip GP107).

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro P1000 has a transistor density of 25.0M / mm², more than double the GT 730M’s 10.8M / mm².

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The GT 730M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro P1000 has a higher TDP of 47 W.

Q: Does the GT 730M win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The data shows winsA equal to 0, meaning the GT 730M does not win any of the shared benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M | NVIDIA Quadro P1000 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | GK107 | GP107 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 725 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 1800 Mbps effective | 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.800 GPixel/s | 47.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.20 GTexel/s | 59.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 556.8 GFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 47 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | N/A | 150 mm / 5.9 inches (length) |

| Dimensions (Height) | N/A | 69 mm / 2.7 inches |