NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a narrow but clear victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M. The GT 735M scores 3616 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434 points. This works out to a 5.3% advantage for the newer GeForce part, which is a meaningful but not overwhelming margin in a compute-oriented workload.

Context from the nearest rival lists helps frame this result. The GT 735M’s score places it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629 points) and 0.6% above the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596 points). It also edges out the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649 points) by 0.9% in the other direction — meaning the GT 735M sits in a tightly packed cluster of GPUs spanning roughly 1% total performance spread. The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, lands 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431 points) and 1.3% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389 points). Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528 points), which beats it by 2.7%, and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332 points), which trails by 3.1%.

The delta between the two cards in this head-to-head is larger than the delta between either card and its immediate rivals. For instance, the GT 735M is only 0.3% behind the GTX 1050, yet it is 5.3% ahead of the Quadro 2000M. Similarly, the Quadro 2000M is just 1.3% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600, but 5.3% behind the GT 735M. This suggests the performance gap between these two specific mobile GPUs is more significant than the noise in their respective benchmark neighborhoods.

Both cards hold the 21st percentile among all GPUs, which is a useful equalizer. Despite the GT 735M’s higher raw score, both parts are positioned at the same percentile rank, indicating they occupy a similar tier in the overall performance distribution. The average benchmark score for the GT 735M is 3616, while the Quadro 2000M averages 3434 — a difference of 182 points, or exactly the 5.3% margin noted above.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The GT 735M is built on the GK208 chip using Kepler 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip with Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a larger 40 nm node. This process shrink is substantial: the GT 735M packs 1,020 million transistors into an 87 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.7 million transistors per mm². The Quadro 2000M has 1,170 million transistors spread across a 238 mm² die, giving a density of just 4.9 million transistors per mm². The GT 735M is therefore more than twice as dense in transistor packing, despite having 150 million fewer total transistors.

The shading unit counts differ significantly. The GT 735M has 384 shading units, while the Quadro 2000M has 192 — exactly half. Both parts have 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), but the ROP count differs: the GT 735M has 8 ROPs, while the Quadro 2000M has 16. This combination means the GT 735M relies on more shader throughput, while the Quadro 2000M has double the pixel output capability.

Memory configurations share the same type (DDR3) and capacity (2 GB), but the bus widths diverge. The GT 735M uses a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro 2000M uses a 128-bit bus. This doubles the Quadro’s memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s for the GT 735M. The memory clock is identical at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for both. The GT 735M’s narrower bus is a clear bottleneck, even though its other compute metrics are higher.

Clock speeds are only listed for the GT 735M, which has a base clock of 575 MHz and a boost clock of 628 MHz. The Quadro 2000M has no listed base or boost clock in the data. Pixel and texture rates reflect the architectural differences: the GT 735M achieves 5.024 GPixel/s and 20.10 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000M delivers 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput tells a similar story — 482.3 GFLOPS for the GT 735M versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M. Neither part supports FP16 or ray tracing or tensor cores (all null in the data).

API support shows some divergence. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GT 735M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan entry at all. This is a notable feature gap for modern compute and rendering workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 735M wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 5.3%. Its 384 shading units and higher FP32 throughput (482.3 GFLOPS) make it the stronger compute-oriented part in this pairing. The data also shows higher pixel rate (5.024 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.10 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s), meaning the GT 735M has an edge in both fill-rate-bound and shader-bound scenarios. Its newer Kepler 2.0 architecture and 28 nm process node also give it a transistor density advantage of 11.7M/mm² versus 4.9M/mm², which typically translates to better efficiency per unit of silicon.

The Quadro 2000M’s advantages are narrower but real. Its memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s is exactly double the GT 735M’s 14.40 GB/s, thanks to the 128-bit bus versus 64-bit. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound — such as large texture fetches, high-resolution framebuffer operations, or certain compute kernels that stream data — the Quadro 2000M should perform relatively better than its raw compute numbers suggest. The Quadro also has 16 ROPs versus 8 on the GT 735M, giving it double the pixel output capability. In scenarios that stress pixel fill but not shader complexity, the Quadro 2000M can compensate for its lower shader count.

Both GPUs share the same 21st percentile ranking, so neither card is positioned as a high-end part. The GT 735M is the better pick for general-purpose compute and shader-heavy tasks, while the Quadro 2000M has a specific edge in bandwidth-sensitive and pixel-fill workloads. The Quadro’s MXM Module form factor also suggests it was designed for professional mobile workstations, whereas the GT 735M’s IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width indicates a more mainstream laptop integration.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GK208 (GT 735M) vs GF106 (Quadro 2000M)
• Architecture: Kepler 2.0 vs Fermi
• Generation: GeForce 700M vs Quadro Fermi-M (x000M)
• Process node: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Transistors: 1,020 million vs 1,170 million
• Die size: 87 mm² vs 238 mm²
• Transistor density: 11.7M/mm² vs 4.9M/mm²
• Base clock: 575 MHz vs not listed
• Boost clock: 628 MHz vs not listed
• Memory bus width: 64 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s
• Shading units: 384 vs 192
• ROPs: 8 vs 16
• Pixel rate: 5.024 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 20.10 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 482.3 GFLOPS vs 422.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 33 W vs 55 W
• Slot width: IGP vs MXM Module
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs MXM-A (3.0)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 vs none listed
• Release date: 2013-03-31 vs 2011-01-12
• Predecessor: GeForce 600M vs Quadro FX Mobile
• Successor: GeForce 800M vs Quadro Kepler-M

Identical fields include 2 GB DDR3 memory, 32 TMUs, 900 MHz memory clock (1800 Mbps effective), DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, no power connectors, portable-device-dependent display outputs, end-of-life production status, and no launch MSRP.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M scores 3616 points versus 3434 points for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, a 5.3% advantage for the GT 735M.

Q: How does the GT 735M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GT 735M scores 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629 points) and 0.6% above the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596 points). It also sits 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 (3594 points) and 0.9% below the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649 points).

Q: Does the Quadro 2000M have any memory advantage?

A: Yes. The Quadro 2000M has a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the GT 735M’s 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 900 MHz.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these two chips?

A: The GT 735M’s GK208 chip has a density of 11.7 million transistors per mm² (1,020M in 87 mm²), while the Quadro 2000M’s GF106 chip has 4.9 million per mm² (1,170M in 238 mm²).

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GT 735M lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.175). The Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan entry in its specifications. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GT 735M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W. Neither card requires a power connector.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M as the stronger overall performer in this pairing. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 5.3%, delivers higher FP32 throughput (482.3 GFLOPS vs 422.4 GFLOPS), higher pixel rate (5.024 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (20.10 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s), and does so at a lower TDP (33 W vs 55 W). It also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro 2000M lacks. The GT 735M’s 384 shading units give it a 2:1 advantage in shader count, and its 28 nm process node makes it a more modern, denser design.

The Quadro 2000M is not without merit. Its 128-bit memory bus provides 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth — double the GT 735M’s 14.40 GB/s — and its 16 ROPs double the GT 735M’s 8. For memory-bandwidth-bound or pixel-fill-bound tasks, the Quadro 2000M can hold its own despite the lower compute scores. Its MXM Module form factor also indicates a different integration path, likely in professional mobile workstations.

For users who prioritize compute performance, shader throughput, modern API support, and power efficiency, the GT 735M is the clear choice from the data. For those who need maximum memory bandwidth and pixel fill in a professional mobile module, the Quadro 2000M has specific strengths. However, given that the GT 735M wins the benchmark, has a 5.3% performance lead, and matches the Quadro’s 21st percentile ranking while using less power, the data favors the GeForce part for general-purpose use. The Quadro 2000M’s bandwidth advantage is real but does not translate into a benchmark win in the available data.