GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M vs NVIDIA Quadro P600

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M and NVIDIA Quadro P600 represent two very different eras of mobile and professional graphics, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The GT 730M is a 2013 Kepler-based part aimed at mainstream laptops, while the P600 is a 2017 Pascal-based professional workstation card. The benchmark data shows a decisive advantage for the Quadro P600 in both available tests, yet the GT 730M holds its own in the broader performance percentile rankings, creating an interesting contrast between raw compute capability and real-world workload positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P600 wins both head-to-head benchmark tests outright, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P600 scores 11,181 versus the GT 730M's 3,107, a massive 72.2% gap. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P600 leads with 9,755 against 3,524, a 63.9% margin. These results indicate the P600 is substantially better suited for GPU-accelerated workloads like rendering, simulation, and general-purpose compute, which aligns with its professional Quadro positioning.

The GT 730M, however, is not without its strengths. Its average benchmark score of 3,316 actually surpasses the P600's 2,923 average, despite losing both individual head-to-head tests. This seeming contradiction stems from the different benchmark suites: the GT 730M's two Geekbench scores (3,107 and 3,524) are relatively close, while the P600's average is dragged down by its Passmark sub-scores, particularly the low DirectX 10, 11, and 12 results of 14, 24, and 14 respectively, alongside a G2D score of 529. The GT 730M's percentile rank of 20 is also marginally higher than the P600's 19, suggesting that in the broader GPU landscape, the older card sits in a slightly more favorable position relative to all other GPUs.

For gaming and legacy DirectX workloads, the GT 730M's profile may be more consistent, though the data does not include direct gaming benchmarks. The P600's professional focus is evident in its Passmark G3D score of 3,317 and GPU compute score of 1,415, which are strong for a 40W card. Ultimately, the P600 wins where it matters most, modern compute and graphics APIs, while the GT 730M's edge is purely in average score consistency across a narrower test set.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, nodes, and manufacturing processes. The GT 730M uses the GK107 chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The P600, in contrast, uses the GP107 chip on Pascal, built on Samsung's 14 nm process. This newer node allows 3,300 million transistors in a 132 mm² die, a 25.0M / mm² density, more than double the GT 730M's.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational leap. The GT 730M runs at a fixed 725 MHz for both base and boost, with memory clocked at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). The P600 boosts from 1,329 MHz base to 1,557 MHz, with memory at 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This clock advantage, combined with the architectural improvements, explains the P600's dominant compute performance.

Both cards share 384 shading units and 16 ROPs, but the texture unit counts differ: the GT 730M has 32 TMUs versus the P600's 24. This gives the GT 730M a slight texture rate advantage in theory (23.20 GTexel/s vs 37.37 GTexel/s, actually the P600 wins here due to clocks), but the P600's higher clocks win out in practice. The P600 also supports DirectX 12_1 versus the GT 730M's 11_0, plus Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175, making it far more future-proof for modern APIs. Memory types diverge as well: the GT 730M uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the P600 uses GDDR5 on the same bus width but achieves 64.13 GB/s, more than double.

Physical and power characteristics differ too. The GT 730M is an MXM module rated at 33W with no power connectors, while the P600 is a single-slot card at 40W, also connector-free but with a suggested 200W PSU. The P600 measures 150 mm by 69 mm and outputs via 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the GT 730M's display outputs are portable-device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests paint a consistent picture of P600 superiority. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P600 scores 11,181 against the GT 730M's 3,107, a delta of -72.2% from the GT 730M's perspective, meaning the GT 730M trails by nearly three-quarters. This is the single largest gap in the comparison and reflects the P600's 1,195.8 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the GT 730M's 556.8 GFLOPS. The P600's FP16 capability of 18.68 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio) further highlights its compute-oriented design, though neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows slightly but remains decisive: 9,755 for the P600 versus 3,524 for the GT 730M, a -63.9% delta. Vulkan's lower overhead may benefit the older Kepler architecture more than OpenCL, but the P600's architectural advantages, higher clocks, GDDR5 memory, and Pascal's improved scheduling, still produce a 2.8x advantage.

The Passmark results for the P600 add context beyond the head-to-head tests. Its DirectX 9 score of 56 vastly exceeds the DirectX 10 (14), 11 (24), and 12 (14) scores, suggesting the card's strength lies in older APIs or that driver optimizations favor legacy paths. The G2D score of 529 and G3D score of 3,317 indicate solid 2D and general 3D performance, while the GPU compute score of 1,415 aligns with its OpenCL dominance. The GT 730M has no Passmark scores in the data, so its average of 3,316 derives solely from the two Geekbench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro P600 dominates with an OpenCL score of 11,181 versus the GT 730M's 3,107, a 72.2% advantage. This aligns with the P600's 1,195.8 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 556.8 GFLOPS for the GT 730M.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan workloads?

A: The P600 leads again, scoring 9,755 against 3,524 (a 63.9% margin). The P600 also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version than the GT 730M's 1.2.175.

Q: Why does the GT 730M have a higher average benchmark score than the P600?

A: The GT 730M's average is 3,316 based on two Geekbench scores, while the P600's average of 2,923 includes several low Passmark DirectX scores (14 to 56) that drag it down despite its strong Geekbench results.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The P600's GDDR5 memory delivers 64.13 GB/s, more than double the GT 730M's DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s, both on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are these cards suitable for modern DirectX titles?

A: The P600 supports DirectX 12_1, while the GT 730M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). The P600's Passmark DirectX 12 score of 14 is low, but the GT 730M's lack of DirectX 12_1 features limits its modern API support.

Q: What are the physical differences in form factor?

A: The GT 730M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs, while the P600 is a single-slot card measuring 150 mm by 69 mm with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M | NVIDIA Quadro P600 |

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

| Chip | GK107 | GP107 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (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 | 1,329 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 725 MHz | 1,557 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) | 1,002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 64.13 GB/s |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.800 GPixel/s | 24.91 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.20 GTexel/s | 37.37 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 556.8 GFLOPS | 1,195.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | None listed | 18.68 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 33 W | 40 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 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 |

| Release Date | 2013-01-19 | 2017-02-06 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Quadro Volta |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 150 mm x 69 mm |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro P600 is the superior GPU in every head-to-head benchmark available. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are roughly 2.8x and 2.8x higher, respectively, driven by a 14 nm process, nearly double the FP32 throughput, and GDDR5 memory with over twice the bandwidth. For professionals running compute-heavy workloads, the P600 is the only rational choice from this comparison.

The GT 730M, however, deserves a nuanced look. Its higher percentile rank (20 vs 19) and slightly higher average benchmark score (3,316 vs 2,923) suggest that in a broader context, it is not drastically outclassed, particularly if the workload relies on older DirectX features or if the system is constrained to the MXM form factor. The GT 730M's 33W TDP and connector-free design make it a low-power option for portable devices, while the P600's 40W TDP and single-slot profile suit compact workstations with 200W PSUs.

Modern API support tips the scales further toward the P600: DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 versus the GT 730M's older 11_0 and 1.2.175. The P600's 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also provide professional multi-monitor flexibility that the GT 730M's device-dependent outputs cannot match. For anyone choosing between these two today, the Quadro P600 wins on compute, memory, API support, and connectivity. The GT 730M's only claim is legacy compatibility and a marginally better standing among all GPUs, but that standing is built on a narrower benchmark suite.