NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded benchmark in the database for this pairing is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a decisive result. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M scores 3616. That is a 17.3% advantage for the Quadro K3000M, a gap large enough to place the two chips in different performance tiers entirely.

To contextualize the K3000M's score, the database's nearest rival data shows it sitting within a narrow band of similarly performing parts. It trails the AMD Radeon Vega 3 by just 0.6% (4268 versus 4241), sits 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282), and actually leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1.2% (4193). The AMD FirePro W2100 is 1.3% ahead at 4295. What this suggests is that the K3000M, despite its age and professional workstation orientation, computes at a level comparable to a range of consumer and entry-level workstation parts from later generations.

The GT 735M's score of 3616 places it in a different bracket. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 at 3629 (the GT 735M trails by 0.3%), the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation at 3596 (the GT 735M leads by 0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 at 3594 (a 0.6% lead). The AMD Radeon HD 6770 sits 0.9% ahead at 3649. The clustering here is remarkably tight, with all four rivals within roughly one percent of the GT 735M's score. This indicates that the GT 735M is a thoroughly average performer for its class, neither a standout nor a laggard within its immediate competitive set.

The head-to-head delta of 17.3% is the headline number. The K3000M wins the only benchmark test in the database, giving it a 1-0 record in wins. No test in the database shows the GT 735M ahead. The percentile data reinforces this: the K3000M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 735M sits at the 21st percentile. That four-point gap in percentile ranking is consistent with the raw score difference, though it also reflects how dense the field is around these performance levels. Many GPUs cluster in this range, so a 17.3% score difference translates to a modest percentile gap.

Architecture Differences

Both chips come from NVIDIA's Kepler family, but they are not the same implementation. The K3000M is built on the original Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. The GT 735M uses Kepler 2.0, the revised generation, and employs the GK208 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. The foundry is identical, and the process node is identical, but that is where the similarities end.

The physical scale of the two chips is dramatically different. The K3000M's GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GT 735M's GK208 is far smaller: 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, with a density of 11.7 million per square millimeter. The K3000M has more than three times the transistor count and a die more than three times the size. The density figures are close, which implies the manufacturing process is being used with similar efficiency, but the sheer scale of the K3000M's chip gives it far more hardware resources.

The compute configuration reflects that scale. The K3000M carries 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The GT 735M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The K3000M has 50% more shaders, 50% more TMUs, and four times the ROP count. The ROP disparity is particularly striking and directly explains the pixel throughput difference: the K3000M achieves 7.848 GPixel/s, while the GT 735M manages 5.024 GPixel/s. Texture throughput likewise favors the K3000M at 31.39 GTexel/s versus 20.10 GTexel/s. Floating point performance follows the same pattern: the K3000M delivers 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the GT 735M delivers 482.3 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major dividing line. The K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, producing 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 735M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, producing just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 6.2x bandwidth advantage for the K3000M. Memory clock rates also differ: the K3000M runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective, while the GT 735M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The K3000M's wider bus more than compensates for its lower clock speed.

Clock speeds for the GPU cores themselves are modest on both parts. The K3000M runs at 654 MHz for both base and boost, which is unusual because there is no dynamic range. The GT 735M has a 575 MHz base and a 628 MHz boost, offering a small headroom above its base. The K3000M's higher fixed clock contributes to its compute advantage, but the architectural resources matter more than the clock delta.

The power envelopes differ substantially. The K3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with a MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The GT 735M has a TDP of 33 W, is an integrated-style IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and requires no power connectors. Neither part needs external power connectors, but the K3000M's MXM form factor is designed for modular mobile workstations, while the GT 735M targets low-power laptops.

Both parts share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both, meaning the outputs are dictated by the laptop design rather than the GPU itself.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database's benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 3616 for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M, a 17.3% advantage for the K3000M.

Q: How does the K3000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K3000M trails the AMD Radeon Vega 3 by 0.6%, trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M by 1%, leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1.2%, and trails the AMD FirePro W2100 by 1.3%.

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

A: The GT 735M trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 by 0.3%, leads the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation by 0.6%, leads the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 by 0.6%, and trails the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 0.9%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The K3000M has 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The GT 735M has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor counts?

A: The K3000M's GK104 chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GT 735M's GK208 chip contains 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die.

Q: Do the two GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear call. The K3000M wins the only benchmark test in the database, and it wins by a substantial 17.3% margin. Its score of 4241 places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 735M's 3616 sits at the 21st percentile. The K3000M is the better performer in compute, memory bandwidth, pixel throughput, and texture throughput.

The hardware resources back up the benchmark result. The K3000M has 576 shading units versus 384, 48 TMUs versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 8. Its 256-bit GDDR5 memory interface delivers 89.60 GB/s, compared to the GT 735M's 64-bit DDR3 interface at 14.40 GB/s. The K3000M's FP32 throughput of 753.4 GFLOPS is more than half again the GT 735M's 482.3 GFLOPS.

The only dimension where the GT 735M has a clear advantage is power consumption. At 33 W TDP, it draws less than half the K3000M's 75 W. It also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface rather than the MXM-B (3.0) module, making it suitable for thinner, lighter laptops. For a user who prioritizes battery life and low heat output over compute capability, the GT 735M is the more efficient choice.

But for pure performance, the K3000M wins outright. It also carries the Quadro professional branding, which in this data set corresponds to higher raw compute. The GT 735M's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its score, suggesting it is a typical low-end mobile part. The K3000M's nearest rivals include stronger parts like the GTX 460M and the Vega 3, placing it a step above the GT 735M's competitive tier.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every hardware specification. The K3000M uses the Kepler architecture with a GK104 chip, while the GT 735M uses Kepler 2.0 with a GK208 chip. The K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die; the GT 735M has 1,020 million on 87 mm². The K3000M runs at a 654 MHz base and boost clock; the GT 735M runs at 575 MHz base and 628 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ too: 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective for the K3000M, versus 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective for the GT 735M.

Memory configuration is a major separator. The K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 735M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. Shader, TMU, and ROP counts all favor the K3000M: 576 versus 384 shading units, 48 versus 32 TMUs, and 32 versus 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 5.024 GPixel/s, texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 20.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 482.3 GFLOPS.

The TDP figures differ by more than double: 75 W for the K3000M versus 33 W for the GT 735M. Form factors also differ: the K3000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus, while the GT 735M is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are end-of-life products, but the K3000M released in May 2012, while the GT 735M released in March 2013. The K3000M's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M; the GT 735M's predecessor is the GeForce 600M and its successor is the GeForce 800M. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The K3000M wins in every benchmark category where the database has recorded measurements. It leads the Geekbench OpenCL test by 17.3% and holds advantages in raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, pixel fill rate, and texture fill rate. Its 89.60 GB/s of memory bandwidth is over six times the GT 735M's 14.40 GB/s, which matters for any workload that is memory-bound, such as large texture reads or high-resolution framebuffer operations. Its 32 ROPs versus 8 means it can handle fill-rate-heavy scenarios with far more headroom. The 576 shaders give it a clear edge in general compute tasks.

The GT 735M wins in power efficiency. Its 33 W TDP is less than half of the K3000M's 75 W, making it the appropriate choice for a slim laptop where thermal and battery constraints are tight. Its IGP form factor and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface suggest it is designed for integration into low-power systems rather than modular workstation chassis. The GT 735M also has a higher memory clock speed at 900 MHz versus 700 MHz, though the K3000M's wider bus makes that irrelevant for bandwidth.

For a professional user running compute-heavy mobile workloads, the K3000M is the clear pick. For a consumer seeking a low-power GPU for everyday tasks in an ultraportable system, the GT 735M is the suitable option. The database's single benchmark says the K3000M is the faster part, and the specification sheet confirms it is the more capable chip in nearly every measurable way.