GPU Comparison

The GeForce GT 740 and Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life NVIDIA cards, but they represent two very different design philosophies from two distinct eras. The GT 740 is a Kepler-based consumer card from 2014, while the Quadro 2000 is a Fermi-based professional card from 2010. The benchmark data shows a near-tie in raw compute, yet the architectural and feature gaps between them are substantial.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data yields a single result: the Quadro 2000 wins the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 3898 against the GT 740's 3847. That is a delta of -1.3% from the GT 740's perspective, meaning the Quadro edges ahead by a narrow 1.3%. This is the sole direct comparison available, and it favors the professional card.

However, the GT 740 has a broader benchmark portfolio. It records scores in three tests: Geekbench Metal at 2363, Geekbench OpenCL at 3847, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4083. The Quadro 2000 only has a single OpenCL result of 3898. The GT 740's Vulkan score of 4083 is its strongest showing, and notably, the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed at all. This makes the GT 740 the clear choice for any workload leveraging Vulkan, as the Quadro cannot even participate in that API.

In terms of overall standing, the Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740 sits at the 21st percentile. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 3898, whereas the GT 740's average is 3431. This discrepancy is due to the GT 740's additional lower-scoring tests (Metal and OpenCL), which drag its average down despite its higher Vulkan peak. The data suggests the Quadro 2000 is the more consistent performer in compute tasks, while the GT 740 offers more versatility across different API environments.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GT 740 uses the GK107 chip on the 28 nm Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip on the 40 nm Fermi architecture, also from TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm. This allows the GT 740 to pack 1,270 million transistors into a die size of 118 mm², yielding a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². The Quadro 2000, by contrast, houses 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, with a density of only 4.9M / mm².

The compute resources are starkly different. The GT 740 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The Quadro 2000 has exactly half the shading units at 192, but matches the GT 740 with 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This results in the GT 740 having a higher pixel rate of 7.944 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 5.000 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate of 31.78 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the GT 740 delivers 762.6 GFLOPS against the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS, a 58.9% advantage for the Kepler part.

Memory configurations are similar in size and bus width, both have 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface, but the clocks differ. The GT 740's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The Quadro 2000's memory runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), providing only 41.60 GB/s. The GT 740 offers nearly double the memory bandwidth, which is a major advantage in memory-intensive tasks. Power draw is comparable, with the GT 740 rated at 64 W and the Quadro 2000 at 62 W, both suggesting a 250 W power supply. The GT 740 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the Quadro 2000 needs none.

The interface and output differences are also notable. The GT 740 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 2000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. For display outputs, the GT 740 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a, whereas the Quadro 2000 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. API support shows the GT 740 has a slight edge: it supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. Physical dimensions differ, with the GT 740 being shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) versus the Quadro 2000's 178 mm (7 inches), and the Quadro also has a specified height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The Quadro's launch MSRP was 599 USD, while the GT 740's was 89 USD.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. For general-purpose compute, specifically OpenCL, the Quadro 2000 is the nominal winner, taking the only head-to-head benchmark by 1.3%. Its average benchmark score of 3898 is also higher than the GT 740's average of 3431, and it holds a better overall percentile rank at 23 versus 21. If the task is purely OpenCL-based and the system can accommodate the older PCIe 2.0 interface and its specific display outputs, the Quadro 2000 is the marginally safer choice based on the numbers.

However, the GT 740 is the more future-proof and versatile option. Its Vulkan support (score of 4083) is a category where the Quadro 2000 has no presence whatsoever. Its memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s is nearly double the Quadro's 41.60 GB/s, which would be critical in any workload that is bandwidth-limited. The GT 740 also has a massive advantage in raw compute metrics, with 762.6 GFLOPS FP32 versus 480.0 GFLOPS, and higher pixel and texture rates. The 28 nm process node makes it a more efficient design, and the PCIe 3.0 interface provides greater transfer speeds. For a user who values modern API support and higher theoretical throughput, the GT 740 is the logical pick, despite losing the single OpenCL test. The Quadro 2000's only winning metric is that one OpenCL score and its higher average, which is a thin basis for selection given its lack of Vulkan and significantly lower bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3898, compared to the GeForce GT 740's 3847, a delta of -1.3% from the GT 740's perspective.

Q: Does the GeForce GT 740 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GT 740 supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4083. The Quadro 2000 does not have any Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GeForce GT 740 has a memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s, while the Quadro 2000 has a bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. The GT 740 offers nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: How do the shading units compare?

A: The GeForce GT 740 has 384 shading units, which is double the Quadro 2000's 192 shading units.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The GeForce GT 740 has a higher FP32 performance at 762.6 GFLOPS, compared to the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the process nodes for each card?

A: The GeForce GT 740 is built on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000 is built on a larger 40 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898, and the GT 740 scores 3847. The Quadro 2000 is declared the winner with a deltaPct of -1.3%, indicating the GT 740 is 1.3% behind. This is a very tight margin, well within the noise of typical benchmark variance. The performance is effectively a statistical tie in this single compute workload, despite the significant architectural differences.

The broader benchmark data tells a more nuanced story. The GT 740's Geekbench Vulkan score of 4083 is its best result and represents a workload where the Quadro 2000 cannot compete due to a lack of Vulkan support. The GT 740's Metal score of 2363 is its lowest, reflecting the card's weaker performance in that specific Apple-oriented API. The Quadro 2000's single OpenCL score of 3898 is higher than the GT 740's OpenCL score of 3847, but the GT 740 counters with its superior theoretical specifications. The GT 740's pixel rate of 7.944 GPixel/s and texture rate of 31.78 GTexel/s are decisively higher than the Quadro 2000's 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. These numbers suggest that while the OpenCL compute scores are close, the GT 740 should have a clear advantage in fill-rate-bound and bandwidth-bound scenarios, making the single OpenCL result potentially an outlier rather than a representative measure of overall capability.