NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M sweeps the recorded benchmarks against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, winning all three Geekbench compute tests and posting a higher average score of 4151 versus 3431. The data shows a clean, if narrow, compute victory for the mobile workstation part, while the desktop GeForce holds structural advantages in memory bandwidth and physical form factor. Both chips share the same Kepler architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, which makes this a useful study in how core counts, memory configuration, and platform constraints shape real scores.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2100M owns every compute benchmark in the database. It leads the GT 740 by 49.1% in Geekbench Metal (3524 versus 2363), by 19.2% in Geekbench OpenCL (4587 versus 3847), and by 6.4% in Geekbench Vulkan (4343 versus 4083). That is a total shutout across the head-to-head record, with winsA at 3 and winsB at 0. The pattern in the margin sizes matters too: the K2100M's advantage is largest in Metal and shrinks steadily through OpenCL and Vulkan, which suggests the gap is driven as much by execution resources as by driver or API efficiency.

The GT 740's wins are on the spec sheet, not in the benchmark log. It delivers 80.19 GB/s of memory bandwidth against 48.13 GB/s for the K2100M, a substantial raw-memory lead thanks to faster GDDR5 running at 5 Gbps effective versus 3 Gbps effective. It is also a desktop card in a single-slot form factor with PCIe 3.0 x16, standard dual-DVI plus mini-HDMI outputs, and a fixed card length of 145 mm, while the K2100M is an MXM module whose display outputs are portable-device dependent. For anyone prioritizing memory throughput or desktop installation, the GT 740's physical and memory design is the stronger package.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are Kepler-generation NVIDIA parts fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, and both carry identical API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores, which is expected of this era. From there the designs diverge.

The K2100M uses the larger GK106S chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². It fields 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, and it carries 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus clocked at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Its compute ceiling is 768.4 GFLOPS FP32, with a pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s. Core clocks sit at 667 MHz base and boost. It sits within the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, successor to Quadro Fermi-M and predecessor to Quadro Maxwell-M, released on 2013-07-22.

The GT 740 uses the smaller GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die at 10.8M per mm². It has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width but at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Its FP32 output of 762.6 GFLOPS lands almost exactly on the K2100M's figure, and its pixel rate of 7.944 GPixel/s and texture rate of 31.78 GTexel/s are likewise near-identical. It belongs to the GeForce 700 generation, successor to GeForce 600 and predecessor to GeForce 900, released on 2014-05-28, and it carried a launch MSRP of 89 USD.

The paradox is instructive: near-identical theoretical peak FP32, pixel, and texture rates, yet the K2100M wins every measured compute test by a wide margin. The database points to two explanatory factors. First, the K2100M has 50% more shading units (576 versus 384) and more TMUs (48 versus 32), so sustained throughput benefits from more parallelism even if per-unit rates balance out on paper. Second, the K2100M's 2 GB memory capacity doubles the GT 740's 1024 MB, which affects workloads that spill beyond a gigabyte. The GT 740's bandwidth edge apparently cannot compensate in these compute tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Geekbench Metal is the blowout: 3524 for the Quadro K2100M against 2363 for the GT 740, a 49.1% margin. This is the single largest delta in the record and the clearest evidence that the K2100M's additional shading resources translate into real throughput.

Geekbench OpenCL is a decisive but smaller win for the K2100M, 4587 versus 3847, a 19.2% gap. OpenCL is also where the K2100M posts its highest absolute score of any test, making it the part's best-recorded workload. The GT 740's 3847 here is its own strongest result relative to its rival, but it still trails clearly.

Geekbench Vulkan is the closest contest: 4343 versus 4083, a 6.4% K2100M win. The GT 740's Vulkan score nearly matches the K2100M's, indicating that the modern-API path narrows the difference considerably.

In context, the K2100M's average score of 4151 places it in the 25th percentile against all GPUs in the database, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170, a 0.4% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, 1.4%), and Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, 1.9%). The GT 740's average of 3431 puts it in the 21st percentile, clustering with the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434, 0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, 1.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528, 2.7%), and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, 3%). Both parts sit near the bottom of the modern distribution, but the K2100M sits meaningfully higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall? A: The Quadro K2100M. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks and holds a higher average score, 4151 versus 3431, placing it in the 25th percentile versus the GT 740's 21st.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between them? A: Geekbench Metal, where the K2100M scores 3524 against 2363 for the GT 740, a 49.1% advantage.

Q: Does the GT 740 win anything? A: No recorded benchmark. Its advantages are structural: 80.19 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 48.13 GB/s, desktop PCIe 3.0 x16 installation, and standard display outputs.

Q: Do they support the same APIs? A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which has more memory? A: The K2100M, with 2 GB of GDDR5 versus 1024 MB in the GT 740. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which uses less power? A: The K2100M, with a 55 W TDP versus 64 W for the GT 740. The GT 740 also requires a 6-pin power connector and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the MXM-based K2100M lists no power connectors.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the pick straightforward. For any workload resembling the recorded compute tests, the Quadro K2100M is the stronger GPU: three wins from three, margins ranging from 6.4% to 49.1%, a higher average score, and a higher percentile placement. Its larger shading unit count and doubled memory capacity clearly matter more in practice than its lower memory bandwidth.

The GT 740 is the choice only when its structural traits dominate: a desktop PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, single-slot card format with a defined 145 mm length, conventional DVI and mini-HDMI outputs, and the higher 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. But its benchmark record against the K2100M is a clean loss, and its rival cluster (Quadro 2000M, Intel HD Graphics P4600, GeForce 920MX, Intel HD Graphics 530) sits below the K2100M's neighborhood. Both parts are end-of-life, so this comparison is retrospective, and on the numbers alone the K2100M is the better-performing chip.

Specification Differences

• Chip: GK106S (K2100M) versus GK107 (GT 740)
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) versus GeForce 700
• Release date: 2013-07-22 versus 2014-05-28
• Transistors: 2,540 million versus 1,270 million
• Die size: 221 mm² versus 118 mm²
• Transistor density: 11.5M/mm² versus 10.8M/mm²
• Core clock: 667 MHz base and boost (K2100M) versus unspecified (GT 740)
• Memory size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB
• Memory clock: 752 MHz, 3 Gbps effective versus 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective
• Memory bandwidth: 48.13 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s
• Shading units: 576 versus 384
• TMUs: 48 versus 32
• FP32: 768.4 GFLOPS versus 762.6 GFLOPS
• Pixel rate: 8.004 GPixel/s versus 7.944 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 32.02 GTexel/s versus 31.78 GTexel/s
• TDP: 55 W versus 64 W
• Form factor: MXM Module versus Single-slot, 145 mm length
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: none listed versus 250 W
• Bus interface: MXM-A (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a
• Launch MSRP: not listed versus 89 USD
• Succession: Quadro Fermi-M to Quadro Maxwell-M versus GeForce 600 to GeForce 900