NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 takes all three head-to-head benchmark tests against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740. The margin, however, is not uniform. It ranges from a modest 2.6% lead in one test to a dominant 53.6% blowout in another. This pattern suggests the two cards, despite sharing the same underlying chip, are tuned for very different workloads.

The largest gap appears in the geekbench_metal test. Here, the Quadro K2000 scores 3630 against the GT 740's 2363, a delta of 53.6%. That is a substantial difference, indicating the Quadro's driver stack and hardware configuration are significantly better optimized for Metal API workloads. The GT 740 trails by more than half its own score, which is a massive disadvantage for any application relying on this API.

The geekbench_opencl test shows a much closer contest. The Quadro K2000 posts 4071, while the GT 740 manages 3847. The 5.8% delta is meaningful but not overwhelming. In practical terms, this means the Quadro K2000 holds a solid, but not transformative, advantage in OpenCL compute tasks. For users considering either card strictly for OpenCL acceleration, the difference would be noticeable but not dramatic.

The geekbench_vulkan test is the tightest race. The Quadro K2000 edges out the GT 740 with a score of 4191 versus 4083, a mere 2.6% difference. This is within the range of run-to-run variance one might expect from benchmark repetitions, although the database records it as a win for the Quadro. In Vulkan workloads, the two cards are effectively peers, with the Quadro holding only a slight statistical edge.

Looking at the aggregate numbers reinforces the Quadro's overall superiority. The Quadro K2000 achieves an average benchmark score of 3964, while the GT 740 sits at 3431. That is a difference of roughly 533 points, or about 15.5% on the average. The Quadro also lands in the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GT 740 falls to the 21st percentile. Neither card is a powerhouse by modern standards, but the Quadro consistently outperforms its consumer counterpart.

The nearest rival data further contextualizes these results. The Quadro K2000's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2, which scores 3977, a delta of -0.3% against the Quadro. The Quadro's other rivals cluster tightly together: the NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 3957 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953 (0.3% behind). This grouping indicates the Quadro K2000 sits right at the edge of a performance plateau shared by several mid-range mobile and older desktop parts.

The GT 740's rivals show a different landscape. Its nearest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M at 3434, a delta of -0.1% against the GT 740. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389, putting it 1.2% behind the GT 740. The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX scores 3528, which is 2.7% ahead of the GT 740. The Intel HD Graphics 530 trails by 3% with a score of 3332. This positioning shows the GT 740 competing in a lower tier, trading blows with integrated graphics solutions and entry-level mobile parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strongest showing is in Metal, where the 53.6% lead over the GT 740 is decisive. This makes the Quadro the clear choice for any workflow heavily dependent on the Metal API, which is common in macOS-based creative applications and certain compute frameworks. The data suggests that if a user's primary applications leverage Metal, the Quadro K2000 is dramatically more capable.

In OpenCL, the Quadro's 5.8% advantage is more modest. OpenCL workloads that are not particularly demanding might run adequately on either card. However, for sustained or complex OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro's higher score of 4071 versus 3847 indicates it will complete jobs somewhat faster. The GT 740 is not embarrassed here, but it is outmatched.

Vulkan is the only domain where the GT 740 comes close. The 2.6% delta in favor of the Quadro K2000 is small enough that most users would not perceive a difference in real-world gaming or Vulkan-based applications. For users specifically targeting Vulkan, the GT 740 can be considered nearly equivalent to the Quadro, making the decision rest on other factors like connectivity or power requirements.

There are no benchmark categories where the GT 740 wins outright. The Quadro K2000 claims all three head-to-head tests, and its average score of 3964 is substantially higher than the GT 740's 3431. The GT 740's best relative performance comes in Vulkan, where it nearly matches the Quadro. For users who exclusively use Vulkan and do not care about other APIs, the GT 740 is a viable alternative. For everyone else, the Quadro K2000 is the stronger performer.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000, with an average benchmark score of 3964 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740's 3431.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2000 in the Metal benchmark?

A: The Quadro K2000 scores 3630 in geekbench_metal, which is 53.6% higher than the GT 740's score of 2363.

Q: Are the two cards similar in Vulkan performance?

A: Yes. The Quadro K2000 scores 4191 in geekbench_vulkan, while the GT 740 scores 4083, a difference of only 2.6%.

Q: What is the GT 740's closest competitor in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, with an average score of 3434, which is 0.1% behind the GT 740's average of 3431.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K2000, at the 24th percentile, while the GT 740 sits at the 21st percentile.

Q: Does the GT 740 win any benchmark category?

A: No. The Quadro K2000 wins all three recorded head-to-head tests: Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications. The most obvious is memory size: the Quadro K2000 features 2 GB of GDDR5, while the GT 740 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. This is a significant difference for workloads that require larger framebuffers or dataset residency.

Memory clock speeds also differ. The Quadro K2000 runs its memory at 1000 MHz, yielding 4 Gbps effective, while the GT 740 runs at 1253 MHz, yielding 5 Gbps effective. Consequently, memory bandwidth differs as well: the Quadro K2000 delivers 64.00 GB/s, while the GT 740 delivers 80.00 GB/s. This is interesting because the GT 740 has a higher bandwidth despite having half the memory capacity.

Compute rates show modest differences. The Quadro K2000 has a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s. The GT 740 posts slightly higher figures: 7.944 GPixel/s and 31.78 GTexel/s. FP32 performance follows the same pattern, with the Quadro at 732.7 GFLOPS and the GT 740 at 762.6 GFLOPS. These are small margins, favoring the GT 740 in raw throughput.

Power and physical specifications differ more substantially. The Quadro K2000 has a TDP of 51 W and requires no power connectors, drawing everything from the PCIe slot. The GT 740 has a TDP of 64 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector. Both cards suggest a 250 W power supply, but the GT 740's additional connector makes it less flexible for systems with limited power cabling.

The bus interface differs: the Quadro K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GT 740 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard offers more bandwidth, though for these performance levels, the practical impact is likely minimal. Display outputs also differ, with the Quadro K2000 offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GT 740 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a. Physical dimensions vary as well: the Quadro K2000 is 202 mm (8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, while the GT 740 is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long with no recorded height.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture. They are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK107 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have exactly 1,270 million transistors on a die size of 118 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The core configurations are identical: 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither supports FP16 operations, as indicated by null values for those fields.

The API support is also identical. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means software compatibility is essentially the same across the two cards, and any performance differences come down to clock speeds, memory configuration, and driver tuning rather than architectural capabilities.

The key architectural difference lies in their generation and product positioning. The Quadro K2000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, with a predecessor of Quadro Fermi and a successor of Quadro Maxwell. The GT 740 belongs to the GeForce 700 generation, with a predecessor of GeForce 600 and a successor of GeForce 900. This generational split reflects different market segments: the Quadro line is designed for professional and workstation use, while the GeForce line targets consumer and gaming use. Despite the identical chip, the drivers, firmware, and feature enablement are likely tuned differently, which explains the benchmark disparities, particularly the massive gap in Metal performance.

The release dates and launch MSRPs also differ. The Quadro K2000 launched on 2013-02-28 with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The GT 740 launched on 2014-05-28 with a launch MSRP of 89 USD. Both are now end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 in overall performance. It wins all three benchmark tests and holds a higher average score of 3964 versus 3431. Its 53.6% lead in Metal performance is the single largest differentiator, making it the only rational choice for Metal-centric workloads. The Quadro also offers double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, which is critical for texture-heavy applications or multi-monitor setups with high resolutions.

The GT 740 does have some redeeming qualities. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 80.19 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, and its pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput are all marginally higher. Its smaller 145 mm length makes it easier to fit in compact cases, and its PCIe 3.0 interface is newer. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. In Vulkan, the GT 740 comes close, but it still loses by 2.6%.

For users who require the highest possible performance in the database's recorded benchmarks, the Quadro K2000 is the clear pick. Its higher percentile ranking (24th versus 21st), higher average score, and decisive Metal advantage make it the superior card. The 51 W TDP and lack of power connectors also make it easier to install in systems without spare PCIe power cables.

The GT 740 is only worth considering under specific conditions. If a user's workload is exclusively Vulkan-based and the 2.6% deficit is acceptable, the GT 740's lower launch MSRP of 89 USD might be attractive. Its higher memory bandwidth could also help in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, although the database does not contain benchmarks that isolate this. For compact builds, the shorter 145 mm length is a genuine advantage.

Ultimately, the Quadro K2000 is the more capable card according to the recorded data. It wins on average score, wins the majority of individual tests, and wins by a landslide in Metal. The GT 740 is not without merit, but its strengths are narrower and less impactful. Professional users, content creators, and anyone working with Metal should choose the Quadro K2000. Gamers or Vulkan-only users on a strict budget might find the GT 740 acceptable, but the data does not support calling it a better performer.