NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M are both end-of-life graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target fundamentally different segments: a professional workstation card versus a mobile consumer GPU. Benchmark data shows the GeForce GT 740M edges out the Quadro 2000D in the single available OpenCL test, but the two cards are separated by architectural generations, memory configurations, and intended use cases. The data indicates that while the GT 740M offers higher raw compute throughput, the Quadro 2000D brings a professional feature set and higher memory bandwidth that may be decisive for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3974 against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D’s 3930. This represents a delta of -1.1% for the Quadro, meaning the GT 740M is approximately 1.1% faster in this specific test. While this is a narrow margin, it is worth remembering the GT 740M also has a second benchmark result — a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3459 — which the Quadro 2000D completely lacks, indicating the GT 740M has broader API support in real-world testing.

The average benchmark score further illustrates the gap: the Quadro 2000D averages 3930, while the GT 740M averages 3717. This discrepancy arises because the GT 740M’s Vulkan score drags down its average, even though its OpenCL score is higher. The Quadro 2000D’s percentile ranking among all GPUs is 23, while the GT 740M sits at 22, placing both in the lower quartile of performance. The data shows the GT 740M wins the only head-to-head comparison, but the victory is marginal and does not suggest a dominant performance advantage.

When examining nearest rivals, the Quadro 2000D sits within 0.7% of three other GPUs: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, delta 0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, delta -0.6%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, delta -0.7%). This tight clustering indicates the Quadro 2000D performs essentially at parity with a range of contemporary and later mobile and entry-level desktop parts. Similarly, the GT 740M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718, delta 0%), the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694, delta 0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (3740, delta -0.6%), showing it also sits in a crowded performance band where small percentage differences separate competitors. The GT 740M’s closest rival, the Quadro 3000M, matches its average score exactly, reinforcing that both cards are mid-pack performers in their respective categories.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Quadro 2000D is built on the Fermi architecture, specifically the GF106 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². In contrast, the GT 740M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip, fabricated on a more advanced 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The GT 740M contains 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 87 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher transistor density of 11.7M per mm². This density advantage reflects the newer manufacturing node, allowing more transistors per area despite a smaller total count.

Core configuration differences are stark. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The GT 740M doubles the shading units to 384, keeps the same 32 TMUs, but halves the ROPs to 8. This results in divergent compute characteristics: the GT 740M achieves a pixel rate of 8.264 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 2000D manages only 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern, with the GT 740M delivering 793.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus the Quadro 2000D’s 480.0 GFLOPS. The GT 740M is clearly the more compute-capable part, but the Quadro 2000D’s higher ROP count relative to its shading units suggests a different balance tuned for specific rendering tasks.

Memory subsystems diverge completely. The Quadro 2000D uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. Its memory clock is 650 MHz, translating to 2.6 Gbps effective. The GT 740M, by contrast, has 2048 MB of DDR3 memory on a narrow 64-bit bus, producing only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 740M’s memory runs at 900 MHz, or 1800 Mbps effective. The Quadro 2000D’s bandwidth advantage is nearly 3x, which could be critical for memory-intensive professional workloads, even though the GT 740M has twice the capacity. Clock speeds also differ: the GT 740M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, while the Quadro 2000D lists no base or boost clocks, only its memory clock.

API support shows another generational gap. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GT 740M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the Quadro 2000D lacks entirely (Vulkan is listed as null). Power consumption and physical design also differ: the Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, and requires a suggested 250 W PSU. The GT 740M is far more power-efficient at 33 W, comes as an MXM module for portable devices, and has no suggested PSU rating. The Quadro 2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GT 740M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, and the Quadro offers 2x DVI outputs while the GT 740M’s display outputs are portable-device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 740M wins decisively in raw compute throughput and efficiency. Its FP32 performance of 793.3 GFLOPS is 65% higher than the Quadro 2000D’s 480.0 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s is 65% higher as well. The pixel rate advantage is also notable: 8.264 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, a 65% improvement. The GT 740M achieves this with a TDP of 33 W, almost half the Quadro 2000D’s 62 W, making it the clear winner for any workload where power consumption or thermal footprint matters, such as in thin-and-light laptops. The GT 740M also has double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) and a higher base clock, which can benefit applications that need more memory for textures or datasets.

The Quadro 2000D wins in memory bandwidth and professional connectivity. Its 41.60 GB/s bandwidth is nearly three times the GT 740M’s 14.40 GB/s, which is a decisive factor for memory-bound tasks like large frame buffers, high-resolution compute, or multi-sample anti-aliasing. The 128-bit bus versus the 64-bit bus is the primary reason for this advantage. Additionally, the Quadro 2000D provides 2x DVI outputs, making it ready for multi-monitor professional setups out of the box, whereas the GT 740M’s display outputs depend entirely on the host portable device. The Quadro also has 16 ROPs versus the GT 740M’s 8, which can improve fill-rate-limited scenarios despite the lower overall pixel rate, since ROP count often matters for specific rendering paths.

In benchmark terms, the GT 740M wins the OpenCL test (3974 vs 3930), but the Quadro 2000D’s average score of 3930 is actually higher than the GT 740M’s average of 3717, because the GT 740M’s Vulkan result (3459) pulls its average down. This means that in a mixed workload environment with both OpenCL and Vulkan tasks, the Quadro 2000D may appear more consistent, while the GT 740M offers a higher peak in OpenCL but a lower floor in Vulkan.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M has higher raw compute performance, with 793.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D’s 480.0 GFLOPS. It also has double the shading units (384 vs 192) and a higher texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s).

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a significant advantage in memory bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s, compared to the GT 740M’s 14.40 GB/s. This is due to the Quadro’s 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory, versus the GT 740M’s 64-bit bus and DDR3 memory.

Q: Does the GT 740M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000D does not list Vulkan support in its specifications and has no Vulkan benchmark result.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The GT 740M is significantly more power-efficient, with a TDP of 33 W compared to the Quadro 2000D’s 62 W. This makes the GT 740M suitable for portable devices, as it comes in an MXM module form factor.

Q: What is the performance difference in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 740M scores 3974, which is 1.1% higher than the Quadro 2000D’s 3930. The GT 740M is the winner in this single head-to-head comparison.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a higher average benchmark score of 3930, compared to the GT 740M’s 3717. This is because the GT 740M’s additional Vulkan benchmark score (3459) lowers its average, despite its higher OpenCL score.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D | NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler 2.0 |

| Chip | GF106 | GK208 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1033 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 41.60 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 8.264 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 33.06 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 480.0 GFLOPS | 793.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 62 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2011-10-04 | 2013-06-19 |

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two GPUs by use case, not just performance. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, efficiency, and modern API support, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M is the better choice. Its 793.3 GFLOPS FP32, 8.264 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 33.06 GTexel/s texture rate are all roughly 65% higher than the Quadro 2000D, and it achieves this at less than half the TDP (33 W vs 62 W). The GT 740M also offers Vulkan support, a newer architecture (Kepler 2.0 on 28 nm), and double the memory capacity, making it a more versatile part for general compute or consumer workloads, especially in portable devices where its MXM form factor and low power draw are assets.

For users who need memory bandwidth or professional display connectivity, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D holds the advantage. Its 41.60 GB/s bandwidth is nearly three times the GT 740M’s 14.40 GB/s, and its 128-bit GDDR5 memory interface is far wider than the GT 740M’s 64-bit DDR3. The Quadro also provides 2x DVI outputs, enabling immediate multi-monitor professional setups, and its higher ROP count (16 vs 8) may benefit specific fill-rate-bound tasks. Its average benchmark score of 3930 is also higher than the GT 740M’s 3717, indicating more consistent performance across different test types, even if it loses the single OpenCL head-to-head.

The verdict depends entirely on the workload. The GT 740M wins on compute, efficiency, and API breadth, while the Quadro 2000D wins on bandwidth, ROP throughput, and out-of-the-box display support. In the only direct benchmark comparison, the GT 740M edges out a 1.1% victory, but the Quadro 2000D’s higher average score suggests it may be the steadier performer in mixed workloads. Neither card is a clear overall winner; they are optimized for different environments, and the data supports choosing based on the specific demands of the application rather than a single benchmark result.