GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA GPU design, separated by roughly three years of architectural evolution. The GT 740, built on the Kepler architecture with a 28 nm process, targets the consumer desktop segment, while the Quadro 2000D, using the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, is a professional workstation card. Despite their different market positions, benchmark data shows they perform within a narrow band of each other, with the Quadro 2000D holding a slight edge in the single available head-to-head test. The GT 740 launches with an MSRP of 89 USD, while the Quadro 2000D carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has the higher average benchmark score at 3930, compared to the GeForce GT 740's 3431. This places the Quadro 2000D in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740 sits in the 21st percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro 2000D wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3930 against the GT 740's 3847, representing a 2.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark result available, and it shows the Quadro 2000D leading by a narrow margin.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card based on average benchmark scores?

A: For the GT 740, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434, -0.1% delta), Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, +1.2%), NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528, -2.7%), and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, +3%). For the Quadro 2000D, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, +0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, -0.6%), AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, -0.7%), and NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, -0.7%).

Q: Which card has better compute performance in terms of FP32 throughput?

A: The GeForce GT 740 has significantly higher FP32 performance at 762.6 GFLOPS, compared to the Quadro 2000D's 480.0 GFLOPS. This represents a roughly 59% advantage for the GT 740 in raw single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GT 740 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The GT 740 has a memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s, while the Quadro 2000D has 41.60 GB/s. Both use 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the GT 740's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 2000D.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs embody fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The GeForce GT 740 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000D uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, produced on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: 28 nm versus 40 nm, which translates directly into transistor density. The GT 740 packs 1,270 million transistors into a die size of 118 mm², resulting in a density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, has 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, yielding a density of just 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the GT 740 achieves more than double the transistor density of the Quadro 2000D.

The shading unit counts differ dramatically. The GT 740 features 384 shading units, while the Quadro 2000D has only 192. Both cards share 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster operation pipelines, but the GT 740's higher shading unit count gives it a substantial computational advantage. The pixel rate for the GT 740 is 7.944 GPixel/s, whereas the Quadro 2000D achieves 5.000 GPixel/s. Similarly, the texture rate is 31.78 GTexel/s for the GT 740 versus 20.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000D. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

The memory subsystems differ in clock speed but not in capacity or bus width. Both cards use 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface, but the GT 740 runs its memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), providing only 41.60 GB/s. The Quadro 2000D's memory bandwidth is roughly half that of the GT 740, which severely limits its throughput in memory-bound workloads.

The bus interface also differs. The GT 740 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 2000D is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. This is consistent with their respective generations, Kepler was among the first architectures to support PCIe 3.0, while Fermi predated it. The GT 740 requires a single 6-pin power connector, whereas the Quadro 2000D has no power connectors, relying entirely on slot power. Both cards have a suggested PSU rating of 250 W and are single-slot designs. The GT 740's TDP is 64 W, slightly higher than the Quadro 2000D's 62 W. Physically, the GT 740 is shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) compared to the Quadro 2000D's 178 mm (7 inches) length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro 2000D edges out the GT 740. The Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the GT 740 scores 3847, giving the Quadro a 2.1% advantage. This result is somewhat counterintuitive given the GT 740's superior specification sheet, it has double the shading units, nearly double the memory bandwidth, and significantly higher FP32 throughput. However, the OpenCL benchmark may not be fully optimized for the Kepler architecture's compute capabilities, or the Fermi architecture's design may handle certain workloads more efficiently in this specific test.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Quadro 2000D's average score of 3930 is derived from just one benchmark result (Geekbench OpenCL), while the GT 740's average of 3431 is computed from three results: Geekbench Metal at 2363, Geekbench OpenCL at 3847, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4083. The GT 740's OpenCL score is actually its middle result, with Vulkan showing notably higher performance at 4083. If the comparison included the Vulkan test, the GT 740 would have a significant advantage. The Metal test score of 2363 drags down the GT 740's average, likely reflecting weaker performance on Apple's Metal API rather than the card's overall capability.

In terms of relative positioning, the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740 is at the 21st percentile. The Quadro 2000D's nearest rival, the Quadro K2000D, has an average score of 3919, just 0.3% lower. The GT 740's nearest rival is the Quadro 2000M at 3434, which is only 0.1% higher. The close clustering of these scores suggests that both cards operate in a performance tier where small architectural differences can flip the outcome in any given test.

The GT 740's Vulkan score of 4083 is notably higher than the Quadro 2000D's OpenCL result, and even its own OpenCL score. This indicates that the GT 740 benefits from modern API support, Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro 2000D lacks entirely. For applications that leverage Vulkan, the GT 740 would likely outperform the Quadro 2000D by a considerable margin, despite the latter's edge in the OpenCL test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The GT 740 uses the GK107 chip on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip on a 40 nm process. Transistor counts are similar (1,270 million vs 1,170 million), but die size differs substantially: 118 mm² for the GT 740 versus 238 mm² for the Quadro 2000D. Transistor density is 10.8M per mm² for the GT 740, more than double the Quadro 2000D's 4.9M per mm².

The memory clocks are 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GT 740 and 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 2000D. This drives a bandwidth difference of 80.19 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s. Both cards have 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The shading unit count is 384 for the GT 740 versus 192 for the Quadro 2000D, a 2x difference. TMUs and ROPs are identical at 32 and 16, respectively. Pixel rates are 7.944 GPixel/s for the GT 740 and 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000D. Texture rates are 31.78 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 762.6 GFLOPS for the GT 740 and 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000D.

Power requirements are close: the GT 740 has a TDP of 64 W with one 6-pin power connector, while the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W with no power connectors. Both suggest a 250 W PSU. The bus interface differs, with the GT 740 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Quadro 2000D using PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a for the GT 740, versus 2x DVI for the Quadro 2000D. API support includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 for both, but Vulkan 1.2.175 is only on the GT 740. Physical dimensions are 145 mm length for the GT 740 and 178 mm length with 111 mm height for the Quadro 2000D.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GT 740 wins decisively on raw computational specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 762.6 GFLOPS is 59% higher than the Quadro 2000D's 480.0 GFLOPS, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that leverage single-precision arithmetic. The GT 740 also doubles the Quadro 2000D's shading unit count, delivering better geometry and pixel processing capabilities. Its memory bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s gives it a substantial advantage in memory-bound applications, and the PCIe 3.0 interface provides double the bus bandwidth for data transfers to and from the host system.

The GT 740's Vulkan support is a significant differentiator. With Vulkan 1.2.175, it can take advantage of modern low-overhead APIs that are increasingly common in gaming and professional applications. The Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support, limiting it to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GT 740's Geekbench Vulkan score of 4083 suggests strong performance in this API, which would likely translate to a decisive win in any Vulkan-based workload.

The Quadro 2000D's win comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 3930 versus the GT 740's 3847. This 2.1% advantage suggests that the Fermi architecture's OpenCL implementation is slightly more efficient for certain compute tasks, despite the GT 740's superior specification sheet. The Quadro 2000D also has a higher average benchmark score of 3930 compared to the GT 740's 3431, though this is partly due to the GT 740's weaker Metal score of 2363 pulling down its average.

For professional workstation use, the Quadro 2000D's positioning as a certified professional card may be relevant, though the data shows its performance is closely matched by the consumer-oriented GT 740. The Quadro 2000D's lack of power connectors makes it easier to install in systems with limited power delivery, and its slightly lower TDP of 62 W versus 64 W is marginally more efficient. However, the GT 740's shorter length of 145 mm versus 178 mm makes it easier to fit in compact cases.

In gaming and consumer applications, the GT 740 is the stronger choice. Its higher shading unit count, memory bandwidth, and FP32 performance all point to better real-world performance in graphics-intensive tasks. The Vulkan support is particularly valuable for modern games that use this API. The Quadro 2000D, with its 192 shading units and half the memory bandwidth, would struggle to match the GT 740 in these scenarios, despite its narrow OpenCL win.

For compute workloads using OpenCL specifically, the Quadro 2000D holds a slight edge based on the available data. Its 2.1% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test may be within margin of error, but it is the only direct comparison available. Users who primarily run OpenCL-based applications might prefer the Quadro 2000D, while those using Vulkan or requiring higher raw throughput should choose the GT 740.