NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in a direct comparison that is defined by generational and architectural shifts. The GT 740M emerges as the clear performance leader in the available tests, leveraging a newer design and higher clock speeds to overcome the Quadro’s advantages in memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, isolates where each chip excels, and examines the underlying hardware differences that explain their respective positions in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two mobile GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3974, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. This represents a 15.7% advantage for the GT 740M, a substantial margin that establishes the newer chip as the faster part for general compute workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GT 740M’s average benchmark score is 3717, which places it in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 2000M’s average score is 3434, placing it in the 21st percentile. While the percentile ranking difference is minimal, the raw score gap of 283 points is meaningful. The GT 740M’s OpenCL score of 3974 is notably higher than its own average, suggesting it performs particularly well in this specific test. In contrast, the Quadro 2000M’s OpenCL score of 3434 exactly matches its average, indicating consistent performance across its workload.

Examining the nearest rivals for each card further contextualizes the results. The GT 740M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, which scores 3718, a delta of 0%. The GT 740M also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694, delta 0.6%) and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, delta 1.9%), while slightly trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (3740, delta -0.6%). This places the GT 740M in a tightly contested cluster where small score differences separate the participants.

The Quadro 2000M, meanwhile, sits in a similar competitive band. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, which scores 3431, a delta of 0.1%. It outperforms the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, delta 1.3%) and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, delta 3.1%), but falls behind the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528, delta -2.7%). The data shows that both cards are positioned in the lower-midrange of mobile graphics performance, but the GT 740M holds a consistent edge across its benchmark suite.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 740M wins the single available head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 15.7% margin. This victory is driven by the GT 740M’s raw compute specifications, which are significantly higher than the Quadro 2000M’s. The GT 740M delivers 793.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro 2000M manages only 422.4 GFLOPS. This near-double compute throughput translates directly into superior OpenCL performance, where parallel floating-point operations are the primary workload.

The Quadro 2000M, despite losing the compute test, holds advantages in several other areas that do not appear in the head-to-head results. Its memory bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s is exactly double the GT 740M’s 14.40 GB/s, thanks to a 128-bit memory bus versus the GT 740M’s 64-bit bus. This suggests the Quadro 2000M could be more efficient in bandwidth-sensitive workloads such as texture-heavy rendering or large data transfers, even though its overall compute capacity is lower. The Quadro 2000M also has twice the ROPs (16 versus 8) and a higher pixel rate in absolute terms, though the GT 740M’s higher clocks offset this in practice.

In terms of feature support, the GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed. This gives the GT 740M a clear compatibility advantage for modern applications that rely on Vulkan for cross-platform graphics. The GT 740M’s higher transistor density (11.7M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm²) also indicates a more efficient design that extracts more performance from a smaller die.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting a generational leap in NVIDIA’s design philosophy. The GT 740M is built on the Kepler 2.0 architecture, using the GK208 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip. This difference is immediately visible in the process node: the GT 740M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro 2000M uses a 40 nm process. The smaller process node allows the GT 740M to pack 1,020 million transistors into an 87 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 11.7M per mm². The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, has 1,170 million transistors spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 4.9M per mm².

These architectural differences manifest in the compute resources. The GT 740M has 384 shading units, while the Quadro 2000M has only 192. Both cards have 32 TMUs, but the GT 740M’s higher clock speeds (base 980 MHz, boost 1033 MHz versus no listed base or boost clocks for the Quadro) give it a significant throughput advantage. The GT 740M’s texture rate is 33.06 GTexel/s versus the Quadro 2000M’s 17.60 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 8.264 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s.

The GT 740M also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000M matches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but notably lacks Vulkan support entirely. This makes the GT 740M more future-proof for applications that adopt Vulkan as their primary graphics API. The GT 740M’s bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000M uses MXM-A (3.0), which reflects their different integration approaches in mobile platforms.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification, with the GT 740M generally holding the advantage in compute and the Quadro 2000M leading in memory and output capabilities. The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 40 nm. Transistor count favors the Quadro 2000M (1,170 million versus 1,020 million), but die size heavily favors the GT 740M (87 mm² versus 238 mm²), resulting in a transistor density of 11.7M per mm² for the GT 740M and 4.9M per mm² for the Quadro 2000M.

Clock speeds are only listed for the GT 740M, with a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz. The Quadro 2000M has no base or boost clock listed, suggesting its operating frequency is either fixed or not publicly specified. Memory clocks are identical at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, but the memory configurations diverge significantly. Both have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the GT 740M uses a 64-bit bus for 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 2000M uses a 128-bit bus for 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources show the GT 740M with 384 shading units versus 192, but the Quadro 2000M counters with 16 ROPs versus 8. Both have 32 TMUs. The GT 740M’s pixel rate is 8.264 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 33.06 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 793.3 GFLOPS for the GT 740M and 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M. The TDP also differs, with the GT 740M rated at 33 W and the Quadro 2000M at 55 W, indicating the GT 740M is significantly more power-efficient.

Both cards use MXM Module slot widths with no power connectors required, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GT 740M supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 2000M uses MXM-A (3.0). API support is identical for DirectX and OpenGL, but the GT 740M adds Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro 2000M lacks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M has an average benchmark score of 3717, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has an average score of 3434. The GT 740M outperforms the Quadro 2000M by 283 points.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 740M scores 3974 versus the Quadro 2000M’s 3434, a 15.7% advantage for the GT 740M.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a 128-bit memory bus providing 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, which is double the GT 740M’s 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175 listed. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the process node sizes for each GPU?

A: The GT 740M is built on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000M uses a 40 nm process. The GT 740M also has a higher transistor density of 11.7M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm².

Q: Which GPU has a higher TDP?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, which is higher than the GT 740M’s 33 W TDP, indicating the GT 740M is more power-efficient.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M for general compute performance. Its 15.7% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with a higher average benchmark score (3717 versus 3434), makes it the superior choice for users prioritizing raw computational throughput. The GT 740M’s Kepler 2.0 architecture, 28 nm process, and 384 shading units provide a substantial performance foundation that the Quadro 2000M’s Fermi design cannot match.

However, the Quadro 2000M retains specific advantages that may matter in particular use cases. Its double memory bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and twice the ROPs (16 versus 8) make it a more capable candidate for bandwidth-intensive tasks or applications that rely heavily on pixel output. The Quadro 2000M’s higher TDP of 55 W suggests it may have been designed for sustained professional workloads, but this comes at the cost of power efficiency compared to the GT 740M’s 33 W rating.

For most users, the GT 740M is the logical pick. It offers better compute performance, newer architecture, Vulkan support, and lower power consumption. The Quadro 2000M’s only notable wins are memory bandwidth and ROP count, which are unlikely to compensate for its 46.7% lower FP32 throughput (422.4 GFLOPS versus 793.3 GFLOPS) in modern workloads. The GT 740M’s 22nd percentile ranking versus the Quadro 2000M’s 21st percentile further reinforces its slight but consistent performance edge across the benchmark database.