NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M covers two shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the Quadro K2000 comes out ahead, but the margins tell very different stories about the nature of the competition.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2000 scores 4071 against the GT 740M’s 3974. That is a lead of only 2.4%, a result that places both cards effectively in the same performance class for compute workloads. The delta is small enough that run-to-run variance could plausibly flip the order. This near-tie is consistent with the wider rival data: the Quadro K2000’s average benchmark score of 3964 sits just 0.2% above the GeForce 830M and 0.2% above the Radeon R5 M420, while the GT 740M’s average of 3717 is within 0.6% of the GeForce 825M and 1.9% above the Radeon HD 6770. These are all tightly clustered mobile and low-power desktop parts.

The Vulkan test is a different matter entirely. The Quadro K2000 scores 4191, while the GT 740M manages 3459. That is a 21.2% advantage for the Quadro, a substantial gap that indicates the K2000 handles the Vulkan API’s draw calls and command buffers with considerably more efficiency. Notably, the Quadro’s Vulkan score is actually its strongest of the three benchmarks it was tested in, surpassing its OpenCL result of 4071 and its Metal result of 3630. The GT 740M’s Vulkan score, by contrast, is its weakest, coming in well below its OpenCL number. The data suggests the K2000’s driver stack and hardware implementation are better optimized for Vulkan’s low-level access model.

Across the two shared benchmarks, the Quadro K2000 wins both, giving it a 2–0 head-to-head record. The average benchmark score reinforces this overall advantage: the Quadro’s 3964 is 6.2% higher than the GT 740M’s 3717. However, the percentile rankings reveal that neither card is a standout. The Quadro K2000 sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740M sits in the 22nd. Both are firmly in the lower half of the performance distribution, and the practical difference between the two in day-to-day workloads will often be negligible outside of Vulkan-specific scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 4071 against the GeForce GT 740M’s 3974, a margin of 2.4%.

Q: Is the GT 740M competitive in any shared benchmark?

A: In OpenCL, the GT 740M is very close, trailing by only 2.4%. However, in Vulkan it trails by 21.2%, scoring 3459 against the Quadro’s 4191. The GT 740M does not win either of the two shared tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K2000 averages 3964 across all its benchmarks, while the GT 740M averages 3717. That puts the Quadro roughly 6.6% ahead on average, though neither card ranks high globally — the K2000 is in the 24th percentile and the GT 740M in the 22nd.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 740M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth — a major difference in memory throughput.

Q: Why is the GT 740M’s Vulkan score so much lower than its OpenCL score?

A: The GT 740M scores 3974 in OpenCL but only 3459 in Vulkan, a drop of roughly 13%. The Quadro K2000, by contrast, scores higher in Vulkan (4191) than in OpenCL (4071). The data indicates the K2000’s architecture handles Vulkan more efficiently, possibly due to driver maturity or hardware scheduling differences.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate despite having fewer ROPS?

A: The GT 740M has a pixel rate of 8.264 GPixel/s from just 8 ROPs, while the Quadro K2000 has a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s from 16 ROPs. The GT 740M’s higher base clock of 980 MHz (boost 1033 MHz) compensates for its halved ROP count.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but they are different dies from the Kepler family. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip, labeled as Kepler architecture, while the GT 740M uses the GK208 chip, labeled as Kepler 2.0. The transistor counts differ: GK107 packs 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, giving a density of 10.8M transistors per mm². GK208 is smaller at 87 mm² with 1,020 million transistors, which actually yields a higher density of 11.7M per mm².

The shading resources are identical in count: both have 384 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. The difference lies in the render output stage. The Quadro K2000 has 16 ROPs, while the GT 740M has only 8. Yet the GT 740M’s higher clocks (980 MHz base, 1033 MHz boost versus the K2000’s unspecified base and boost) push its pixel rate to 8.264 GPixel/s, above the K2000’s 7.632 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the GT 740M achieves 33.06 GTexel/s versus the K2000’s 30.53 GTexel/s. Raw FP32 compute also favors the GT 740M at 793.3 GFLOPS against 732.7 GFLOPS — a 8.3% theoretical advantage that the OpenCL results do not fully translate into practice.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The K2000 uses GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The GT 740M falls back to DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s — less than a quarter of the K2000’s bandwidth. This explains why the K2000 can match or exceed the GT 740M in compute despite lower raw ALU throughput. The K2000 also has a higher memory clock at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the GT 740M’s 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The Quadro K2000 is a desktop workstation card with a 202 mm length and 111 mm height, while the GT 740M is an MXM module with no listed dimensions and is described as “Portable Device Dependent” for display outputs. The K2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the GT 740M’s outputs depend entirely on the host laptop.

The bus interface differs: the K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GT 740M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Power consumption is significantly lower on the GT 740M at 33 W TDP versus 51 W for the K2000. The K2000 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GT 740M lists none. Both are single-slot solutions with no power connectors required.

The K2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the GT 740M has no listed launch MSRP. Release dates differ by roughly four months: the K2000 launched on 2013-02-28, and the GT 740M on 2013-06-19. The K2000’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell, while the GT 740M’s predecessor is GeForce 600M and successor is GeForce 800M. Both are end-of-life products.

The K2000 was tested in three benchmarks (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan) and achieved an average score of 3964. The GT 740M was tested in only two (OpenCL, Vulkan) with an average of 3717. The K2000’s Metal score of 3630 is not directly comparable since the GT 740M lacks a Metal result, but it does show the K2000’s OpenCL and Vulkan scores are 12.2% and 15.5% higher than its Metal score respectively.

The Verdict

The data does not paint a picture of a dominant winner, but it does point to a clear choice depending on workload. In raw compute terms, the GT 740M has the higher peak FP32 figure at 793.3 GFLOPS, yet it loses the OpenCL test by 2.4%. This suggests the K2000’s superior memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) more than compensates for its 7.6% lower theoretical compute. For any workload that is memory-bound — and most compute workloads are — the K2000 has a structural advantage.

The Vulkan result is decisive in the K2000’s favor. A 21.2% lead is not a marginal difference; it indicates a fundamental efficiency gap in how the two GPUs handle modern graphics APIs. The K2000’s Vulkan score of 4191 is its best result, while the GT 740M’s Vulkan score of 3459 is its worst. If the workload involves Vulkan, the K2000 is the only rational choice.

However, the GT 740M has its own merits. Its 33 W TDP is 35% lower than the K2000’s 51 W, making it far better suited for thin-and-light laptops. Its higher clocks deliver better pixel and texture rates, which can help in older or lighter graphics workloads that do not stress memory bandwidth. The GT 740M also benefits from PCIe 3.0 x8 versus the K2000’s PCIe 2.0 x16, though the practical impact is minimal given the K2000’s bandwidth advantage in memory.

For a desktop workstation with a 250 W PSU and access to DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro K2000 is the stronger part. For a mobile system where power draw and portability matter more than peak compute, the GT 740M is the sensible option. The percentile rankings (24th for K2000, 22nd for GT 740M) confirm that neither card is a high-performance part by modern standards, but the K2000’s consistency across API tests gives it the edge in a head-to-head comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000 wins in every shared benchmark, but its advantages are concentrated in specific areas. In Vulkan, it is 21.2% faster — a decisive win for any application using that API. In OpenCL, its 2.4% lead is modest but consistent, and its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth makes it the better choice for bandwidth-intensive compute tasks like image processing or data-parallel workloads. The K2000 also has the advantage of DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which matter for multi-monitor workstation setups.

The GeForce GT 740M wins in power efficiency and raw clock speed. Its 33 W TDP is substantially lower, and its base clock of 980 MHz with a 1033 MHz boost gives it higher pixel and texture rates. For older games or applications that rely on fill rate rather than memory bandwidth, the GT 740M can outperform its larger rival. It also holds a theoretical FP32 advantage at 793.3 GFLOPS, which the OpenCL results do not confirm in practice but which suggests potential in workloads that fit entirely in cache.

The GT 740M’s MXM form factor is a practical win for laptop upgrades, while the K2000’s 202 mm length and single-slot design suit compact desktops. Neither card supports modern ray tracing or tensor cores, and both are end-of-life products. The K2000’s launch MSRP of 599 USD reflects its workstation positioning, but the GT 740M’s lack of a listed MSRP makes direct pricing comparisons impossible — and irrelevant given the age of both parts.

In summary: the K2000 is the winner for compute-heavy, API-diverse workloads, especially Vulkan. The GT 740M is the winner for power-constrained mobile use and for tasks that favor fill rate over bandwidth. The data is clear that the K2000 is the better overall GPU, but the GT 740M occupies a distinct niche that the K2000 cannot fill.