NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M Comparison

NVIDIA's GeForce GT 740M and GT 740 share a name and a Kepler lineage, but they are built for different worlds: one is a mobile MXM module for laptops, the other a single-slot desktop card. Benchmark data shows a split decision—the laptop part wins in OpenCL, while the desktop card dominates in Vulkan. This analysis breaks down their architectures, specs, and measured performance using only the provided dataset.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M leads with an average benchmark score of 3717, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740's 3431. This places the mobile part at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the desktop card sits at the 21st percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the GT 740M scores 3974 against the GT 740's 3847, giving the laptop GPU a 3.3% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark win for the mobile part.

Q: What is the result of the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The GT 740 wins decisively in geekbench_vulkan with a score of 4083 versus the GT 740M's 3459. The delta is 15.3% in favor of the desktop card, making it the larger margin of victory in either direction.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory type?

A: No. The GT 740M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 740 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s—over 5.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP and power requirements for each card?

A: The GT 740M has a 33 W TDP and uses no power connectors (MXM module). The GT 740 has a 64 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has more ROPs and what does that affect?

A: The GT 740 has 16 ROPs, double the GT 740M's 8 ROPs. Despite this, the GT 740M achieves a slightly higher pixel rate at 8.264 GPixel/s versus 7.944 GPixel/s for the desktop card.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they are distinct silicon. The GT 740M uses the GK208 chip with Kepler 2.0 architecture, while the GT 740 uses the GK107 chip with the original Kepler architecture. Transistor counts differ accordingly: the GK208 packs 1,020 million transistors into an 87 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 11.7M per mm². The GK107 is larger at 118 mm² with 1,270 million transistors, though its density is slightly lower at 10.8M per mm².

The shading core counts are identical—both GPUs feature 384 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. However, the render output configuration diverges: the mobile chip has 8 ROPs, while the desktop chip has 16 ROPs. This doubling of ROPs on the GT 740 does not translate into a higher pixel rate in the data—the GT 740M posts 8.264 GPixel/s versus 7.944 GPixel/s for the GT 740—which suggests clock speed differences play a role.

Clock specifications are only partially listed. The GT 740M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz. The GT 740 has no base or boost clocks listed in the dataset, making direct frequency comparison impossible. Memory clocks differ dramatically: the GT 740M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) while the GT 740 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This memory clock gap, combined with the bus width difference, explains the massive bandwidth disparity.

The API support is identical: both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The GT 740M's bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GT 740 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Physical form factors differ completely—the 740M is a portable-device-dependent MXM module, while the 740 is a 145 mm single-slot card with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a outputs.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The GT 740M is the pick for compute workloads measured by OpenCL, where it beats the GT 740 by 3.3% (3974 vs 3847) and holds a higher average benchmark score (3717 vs 3431). Its lower TDP of 33 W versus 64 W also makes it the more power-efficient option, though it is limited to mobile platforms.

The GT 740 is the choice for graphics API performance, specifically Vulkan. Its 4083 score represents a 15.3% lead over the GT 740M's 3459, and it also delivers far superior memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s). For desktop users needing a low-profile card with dual DVI outputs and a single 6-pin power connection, the GT 740 is the functional option.

Neither card is a performance champion—both sit near the bottom quartile of all GPUs (22nd and 21st percentiles). The GT 740M's nearest rivals include the Quadro 3000M (0% delta), GeForce 825M (0.6% ahead), and GeForce GT 635M (0.6% behind). The GT 740 sits near the Quadro 2000M (0.1% behind), Intel HD Graphics P4600 (1.2% ahead), and GeForce 920MX (2.7% behind). These tight margins indicate both are entry-level parts, but the GT 740's Vulkan advantage and memory subsystem make it the stronger all-rounder for gaming or graphics workloads on desktop.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every physical and memory specification. The GT 740M uses the GK208 chip (Kepler 2.0) while the GT 740 uses GK107 (Kepler). Transistor counts: 1,020 million vs 1,270 million. Die size: 87 mm² vs 118 mm². Transistor density: 11.7M/mm² vs 10.8M/mm².

Memory configuration is starkly divergent: the GT 740M has 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth; the GT 740 has 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s. Memory clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). ROPs: 8 vs 16. Pixel rate: 8.264 GPixel/s vs 7.944 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 33.06 GTexel/s vs 31.78 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 793.3 GFLOPS vs 762.6 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs: TDP is 33 W vs 64 W. Slot width: MXM Module vs Single-slot. Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU: not listed vs 250 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a. Length: not listed vs 145 mm (5.7 inches). The GT 740 has a launch MSRP of 89 USD.

Release dates differ: the GT 740M launched on 2013-06-19, while the GT 740 launched on 2014-05-28. The GT 740M is part of the GeForce 700M generation with predecessor GeForce 600M and successor GeForce 800M. The GT 740 is in the GeForce 700 generation with predecessor GeForce 600 and successor GeForce 900. Both are end-of-life.

Benchmark suites also differ: the GT 740M has results for geekbench_opencl and geekbench_vulkan, while the GT 740 adds a geekbench_metal score of 2363. The GT 740M's two scores average to 3717, while the GT 740's three scores (3847, 4083, 2363) average to 3431, dragged down by the Metal result.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows one win for each GPU, but the margins are not symmetrical. In geekbench_opencl, the GT 740M wins with 3974 against the GT 740's 3847, a 3.3% edge. This is a modest victory, reflecting the mobile chip's slightly higher FP32 peak (793.3 GFLOPS vs 762.6 GFLOPS) and pixel rate. The GT 740M's advantage here is surprising given its memory bandwidth deficit, but the OpenCL test appears to favor the mobile part's clock configuration.

The geekbench_vulkan result flips the script. The GT 740 scores 4083 versus the GT 740M's 3459, a 15.3% lead—more than four times the margin of the OpenCL win. This is the decisive benchmark in the comparison. The desktop card's GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus likely contribute to this outcome, as Vulkan workloads often stress memory throughput. The GT 740's 16 ROPs may also help in graphics-heavy Vulkan tasks, despite the pixel rate being nominally lower.

Context from nearest rivals puts both scores in perspective. The GT 740M's OpenCL win aligns with its standing among peers like the Quadro 3000M (0% delta) and GeForce 825M (0.6% ahead). The GT 740's Vulkan dominance is echoed by its position relative to the GeForce 920MX (2.7% behind) and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3% ahead). Neither GPU clears its immediate competition by a wide margin in average score, but the GT 740's Vulkan spike is the standout result in the dataset.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story than the head-to-head wins. The GT 740M leads with 3717, but this is because its two scores are both above 3400. The GT 740's average of 3431 is pulled down by its Metal score of 2363, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison. If only OpenCL and Vulkan are considered, the GT 740's average would be 3965, slightly ahead of the GT 740M's 3717 across the same two tests. The data thus favors the GT 740 for cross-API consistency, while the GT 740M holds a narrow edge in raw compute.