NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K2000D vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M represent two distinct branches of NVIDIA's 2013-era Kepler lineup, yet benchmark results show they are remarkably close in raw compute performance. The GeForce GT 740M edges out the Quadro K2000D in the single available OpenCL test, scoring 3974 versus 3919, a margin of just 1.4%. However, the two cards target fundamentally different use cases, with the Quadro K2000D designed as a workstation card for professional environments and the GT 740M built as a mobile GPU for laptops. Their architectures share the Kepler DNA but diverge in memory type, bus width, power envelope, and physical design, making the choice between them less about raw speed and more about platform and workload alignment.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has an average benchmark score of 3919, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M averages 3717. This discrepancy exists because the GT 740M's average includes both its OpenCL score (3974) and its Vulkan score (3459), whereas the Quadro K2000D only has an OpenCL result.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in their OpenCL performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 740M scores 3974 against the Quadro K2000D's 3919, giving the GT 740M a 1.4% advantage. This is a very narrow margin, placing both cards within a similar performance tier for compute workloads.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The Quadro K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 740M also has 2 GB but uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth—a substantial difference in memory throughput.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density despite a smaller die?

A: The GT 740M, built on the GK208 chip, has a die size of 87 mm² with 1,020 million transistors, yielding a density of 11.7M transistors per mm². The Quadro K2000D's GK107 chip is 118 mm² with 1,270 million transistors, resulting in 10.8M per mm². The GT 740M packs more transistors per area.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W and a suggested PSU rating of 250 W. The GT 740M is more power-efficient with a 33 W TDP and has no suggested PSU listed, consistent with its mobile MXM Module form factor.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. They share identical API capabilities despite their different market positions and architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins decisively in memory bandwidth and interface width. With 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the GT 740M's 14.40 GB/s, the Quadro offers over 4 times the memory throughput. This is critical for workstation tasks that involve large textures, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-heavy compute workloads. The Quadro also uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, providing a full 16-lane connection to the host system, whereas the GT 740M is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8 (which, despite the newer generation, halves the lane count). The Quadro's 128-bit memory bus versus the GT 740M's 64-bit bus further reinforces its advantage in data-intensive scenarios.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M wins in compute throughput and efficiency metrics. Its FP32 performance of 793.3 GFLOPS edges out the Quadro's 732.7 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s surpasses the Quadro's 30.53 GTexel/s. The GT 740M also has a higher pixel rate (8.264 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s) despite having only 8 ROPs compared to the Quadro's 16. The GT 740M's lower TDP of 33 W versus 51 W makes it more suitable for thermally constrained mobile environments. In the only direct benchmark comparison, the GT 740M wins the OpenCL test, and it also has a Vulkan score (3459) that the Quadro lacks entirely, indicating broader benchmark coverage.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, but they represent different iterations. The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip, labeled simply as "Kepler," while the GT 740M uses GK208, designated "Kepler 2.0." Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the GT 740M achieves higher transistor density (11.7M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm²) due to its more compact design. The Quadro's die is 118 mm² with 1,270 million transistors, while the GT 740M's die is 87 mm² with 1,020 million transistors—a 31 mm² difference in area and a 250 million transistor difference in count.

The shading unit counts are identical at 384, and both have 32 TMUs, but the ROP count differs: the Quadro has 16 ROPs, double the GT 740M's 8. This explains why the GT 740M can achieve a higher pixel rate despite fewer ROPs—its higher clock speeds compensate. The GT 740M has base and boost clocks of 980 MHz and 1033 MHz respectively, while the Quadro K2000D has no listed base or boost clocks, suggesting it runs at lower fixed frequencies. The memory subsystems differ fundamentally: the Quadro uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, while the GT 740M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 64-bit bus. This explains the massive bandwidth gap.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification differences are in memory bandwidth and power. The Quadro K2000D delivers 64.00 GB/s versus the GT 740M's 14.40 GB/s—a 4.4x advantage. The memory type differs (GDDR5 versus DDR3) and the bus width differs (128-bit versus 64-bit). The Quadro's pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus the GT 740M's 8.264 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 30.53 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 compute favors the GT 740M at 793.3 GFLOPS against the Quadro's 732.7 GFLOPS.

The Quadro has a TDP of 51 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GT 740M draws only 33 W with no PSU suggestion. The Quadro is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card with dimensions of 202 mm by 111 mm, featuring 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GT 740M is an MXM Module with PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented design. The Quadro's launch MSRP was 599 USD; the GT 740M has no listed launch MSRP. The Quadro was released on 2013-02-28, while the GT 740M followed on 2013-06-19.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GT 740M scores 3974 against the Quadro K2000D's 3919, a delta of -1.4% from the Quadro's perspective. This is a remarkably tight margin—well within the noise of most real-world workloads. The GT 740M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3459, but the Quadro K2000D has no Vulkan benchmark result, so no comparison is possible there.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The Quadro K2000D's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D at 3930 (0.3% higher), followed by the Quadro 2000 at 3898 (0.5% lower), the GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (0.9% higher), and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883 (0.9% lower). The GT 740M's rivals include the Quadro 3000M at 3718 (0% difference), the GeForce 825M at 3694 (0.6% lower), the GeForce GT 635M at 3740 (0.6% higher), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (1.9% lower). These delta percentages confirm that both cards sit in a tightly clustered performance band, with the GT 740M's OpenCL score being slightly higher but its overall average dragged down by the Vulkan result.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M is the better choice for raw compute performance in a mobile context. It wins the OpenCL benchmark, offers higher FP32 throughput (793.3 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS), and consumes significantly less power (33 W versus 51 W). Its inclusion of a Vulkan benchmark score also indicates broader driver support for modern APIs. However, the GT 740M's severe memory bandwidth limitation (14.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s) means it will struggle with memory-intensive workloads, despite its compute advantage.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the appropriate pick for professional workstation use where memory bandwidth is paramount. Its 4.4x bandwidth advantage, full PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and dual-link DVI outputs make it suited for multi-display setups and applications that move large data volumes. The Quadro's 16 ROPs versus 8 on the GT 740M also suggest better fill-rate consistency for certain rendering tasks, even if the raw pixel rate is slightly lower due to clock differences.

The benchmark data indicates these are evenly matched in general compute, with the GT 740M holding a 1.4% edge. The real differentiators are platform and workload. For a laptop user needing efficient compute, the GT 740M wins. For a desktop workstation requiring high memory bandwidth and professional display outputs, the Quadro K2000D is the data-supported choice. The GT 740M's lower TDP and MXM form factor make it the only option for mobile systems, while the Quadro's 202 mm length and single-slot design fit standard desktop configurations. Neither card can be declared universally superior; the data points to a split decision based on use case.