NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro 2000D vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M — the data shows the Quadro 2000D winning the only direct benchmark comparison, but the GT 735M countering with architectural and efficiency advantages that make it the more sensible pick for its intended mobile role.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the Quadro 2000D takes it decisively. The Quadro 2000D scores 3930 against the GT 735M's 3616, a delta of 8.7% in favor of the workstation card. This is not a marginal edge; it is a clear, repeatable lead in a compute-oriented workload that stresses raw shading throughput.

Contextualizing the Quadro's score: it sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 3930. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly around it — the Quadro K2000D at 3919 (0.3% slower), the GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.6% faster), and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (0.7% faster). The Quadro 2000D is essentially at parity with that group, meaning its 8.7% lead over the GT 735M is the outlier here, not the norm.

The GT 735M's score of 3616 places it at the 21st percentile, with its own nearest rivals telling a different story. The GeForce GTX 1050 averages 3629 (0.3% faster), the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation averages 3596 (0.6% slower), and the GeForce GT 545 averages 3594 (0.6% slower). The GT 735M is not a performance outlier in either direction; it is firmly mid-pack for its class.

What the head-to-head does not show is any test where the GT 735M wins. The win count is 1–0 in favor of the Quadro 2000D, and no other benchmark results exist in the data. This makes the verdict straightforward on raw compute: the Quadro 2000D is the faster part, period. The 8.7% delta is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput of 480.0 GFLOPS versus 482.3 GFLOPS — wait, that is nearly identical. The actual difference must come from memory bandwidth, where the Quadro's 41.60 GB/s GDDR5 dwarfs the GT 735M's 14.40 GB/s DDR3. That 2.9x bandwidth advantage is the likely driver of the OpenCL score gap.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For anyone running compute workloads — OpenCL, professional visualization, or GPU-accelerated tasks — the Quadro 2000D is the pick. Its 8.7% benchmark lead is real, and its 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth provides the memory headroom that OpenCL kernels often need. The Quadro also has a 128-bit memory bus versus the GT 735M's 64-bit bus, doubling the data path.

However, the GT 735M is not without its own verdict. It is a 33 W part versus the Quadro's 62 W TDP — nearly half the power draw. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, designed for portable devices, while the Quadro is a single-slot add-in card with 2x DVI outputs and a suggested PSU of 250 W. If the use case is a laptop or compact mobile system where power efficiency and physical integration matter more than raw OpenCL scores, the GT 735M is the rational choice.

The architectural gulf reinforces this. The GT 735M uses Kepler 2.0 on a 28 nm process, with 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. The Quadro 2000D uses Fermi on a 40 nm process, with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The GT 735M packs more transistors per square millimeter (11.7M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm²), indicating a more modern, denser design. Yet the Quadro still wins on compute — that is the enduring lesson of the benchmark data.

Pick the Quadro 2000D for dedicated workstation compute. Pick the GT 735M for mobile integration and efficiency. The data does not support a third option.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 2000D wins in raw performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3930 beats the GT 735M's 3616 by 8.7%. It also wins on memory bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, and on memory bus width at 128-bit versus 64-bit. Its pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s and texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s are nearly identical to the GT 735M's 5.024 GPixel/s and 20.10 GTexel/s, so the Quadro's advantage is not in pixel or texture throughput — it is in memory-bound compute.

The GT 735M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 33 W TDP is less than half the Quadro's 62 W. It is classified as an IGP, meaning it is designed to be soldered onto a motherboard or integrated into a portable device, with display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro, by contrast, requires a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GT 735M also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a newer bus standard than the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16, though the Quadro's x16 width may compensate in bandwidth.

The GT 735M also wins on memory capacity: 2 GB versus the Quadro's 1 GB. For workloads that need more framebuffer — even if slower — the GT 735M has the edge. Its DDR3 memory is slower per clock, but the 2 GB capacity is double the Quadro's.

The GT 735M has more shading units (384 versus 192) but fewer ROPs (8 versus 16). This suggests the GT 735M is designed for compute-heavy shader workloads, while the Quadro's higher ROP count favors rasterization and pixel output. The texture units are identical at 32 each.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, which is 8.7% higher than the GeForce GT 735M's 3616.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, while the GeForce GT 735M has a TDP of 33 W — the GT 735M uses less than half the power.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The GeForce GT 735M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the Quadro 2000D has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory. The Quadro's GDDR5 type gives it higher bandwidth despite less capacity.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro 2000D was released on 2011-10-04, and the GeForce GT 735M was released on 2013-03-31.

Q: What architectures do they use?

A: The Quadro 2000D uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process with the GF106 chip. The GeForce GT 735M uses Kepler 2.0 on a 28 nm process with the GK208 chip.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 41.60 GB/s bandwidth from its 128-bit GDDR5 bus. The GeForce GT 735M has 14.40 GB/s from its 64-bit DDR3 bus. The Quadro's bandwidth is nearly 3 times higher.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent two distinct NVIDIA generations. The Quadro 2000D is built on Fermi, using the GF106 chip, while the GT 735M is built on Kepler 2.0, using the GK208 chip. This is a generational leap: Fermi was NVIDIA's compute-focused architecture, while Kepler 2.0 refined power efficiency and shader throughput.

The process node differs significantly. The Quadro uses a 40 nm process from TSMC, while the GT 735M uses a 28 nm process from the same foundry. The smaller node allows the GT 735M to fit 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.7M / mm². The Quadro packs 1,170 million transistors onto a much larger 238 mm² die, giving a density of just 4.9M / mm². The GT 735M is the denser, more modern design.

Shader configuration diverges sharply. The GT 735M has 384 shading units, double the Quadro's 192. Texture units are equal at 32 each, but ROPs go the other way: the Quadro has 16, the GT 735M has 8. This means the GT 735M is heavily weighted toward shader compute, while the Quadro balances with more pixel output capacity.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 735M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clocks at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the GT 735M's memory clocks at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GT 735M's higher clock does not compensate for its narrower bus and slower memory type.

API support is mostly aligned, with both supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GT 735M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro lists no Vulkan support. This is a practical difference for modern applications that leverage Vulkan.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is in form factor and power. The Quadro 2000D is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with 2x DVI display outputs. It requires a 250 W suggested PSU and draws 62 W. The GT 735M is classified as an IGP with no dimensions listed, no power connectors, and display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent" — it is not a standalone card.

Memory specs differ on every axis: size (1 GB GDDR5 versus 2 GB DDR3), bus width (128-bit versus 64-bit), and bandwidth (41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s). Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the Quadro lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 650 MHz, while the GT 735M has a base clock of 575 MHz, a boost clock of 628 MHz, and a memory clock of 900 MHz.

Compute rates are nearly identical despite the architectural differences: FP32 is 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 482.3 GFLOPS for the GT 735M. Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s versus 5.024 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 20.10 GTexel/s. The GT 735M edges out the Quadro on every per-clock metric, but the Quadro's memory bandwidth advantage wins the actual benchmark.

The bus interface differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GT 735M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The GT 735M's bus is newer but narrower. The Quadro's launch MSRP is 599 USD; the GT 735M has no launch MSRP listed. The Quadro's generation is "Quadro Fermi (x000)", released in 2011, with a successor of "Quadro Kepler". The GT 735M's generation is "GeForce 700M", released in 2013, with a predecessor of "GeForce 600M" and a successor of "GeForce 800M".