NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the GeForce GT 740M scores 3974. This gives the Quadro a 6.7% advantage, marking it as the winner in the sole head-to-head test. The database records one win for the Quadro K3000M and zero wins for the GeForce GT 740M in their direct comparisons.

Looking at broader benchmark averages, the Quadro K3000M holds an average score of 4241, placing it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The GeForce GT 740M, by contrast, has an average score of 3717, sitting in the 22nd percentile. The difference in average scores amounts to roughly 14% in favor of the Quadro, a margin that becomes more meaningful when considering the architectural disparities between the two mobile graphics processors.

The GeForce GT 740M does have an additional benchmark result in the database, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3459. No equivalent Vulkan score exists for the Quadro K3000M, meaning the comparison for that API remains incomplete. The OpenCL result, however, serves as the primary point of reference, and it consistently favors the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a common foundation in the Kepler architecture, but they diverge significantly in implementation. The Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The GeForce GT 740M employs the GK208 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, resulting in a density of 11.7 million per square millimeter. The Quadro's die is more than three times larger, a direct reflection of its substantially higher transistor count.

The memory subsystems are starkly different. The Quadro K3000M pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce GT 740M also has 2 GB, but it uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is a sixfold difference in memory bandwidth, a gap that likely explains much of the Quadro's benchmark advantage in memory-intensive workloads. The memory clocks also differ, with the Quadro running at 2.8 Gbps effective and the GT 740M at 1800 Mbps effective.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The GeForce GT 740M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1033 MHz, while the Quadro K3000M runs at a flat 654 MHz for both base and boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Quadro's larger configuration compensates. It features 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GT 740M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The Quadro's ROP count is four times higher, which directly affects pixel throughput.

Rates and compute figures reflect these structural differences. The Quadro K3000M achieves a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s, with FP32 compute of 753.4 GFLOPS. The GeForce GT 740M posts a pixel rate of 8.264 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 33.06 GTexel/s, with FP32 compute of 793.3 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the GT 740M edges ahead in pixel rate, texture rate, and raw FP32, despite its smaller memory bus and lower transistor count. This suggests that for certain throughput-bound tasks, the higher clocks of the GT 740M can overcome its narrower memory interface.

The bus interfaces also differ. The Quadro K3000M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the GeForce GT 740M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, and both have display outputs described as portable device dependent. Power consumption favors the GT 740M at 33 W, compared to the Quadro's 75 W, making the GeForce the more efficient option on paper.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M outscores the GeForce GT 740M in the only direct benchmark available, with a 6.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro also holds a higher average benchmark score and a better percentile ranking. However, the GeForce GT 740M counters with superior pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute, alongside significantly lower power consumption. The choice depends on which metrics matter more.

For workloads that rely heavily on memory bandwidth, such as large data transfers or high-resolution texture streaming, the Quadro K3000M is the clear pick. Its 89.60 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the GT 740M's 14.40 GB/s. For tasks that are compute-bound and benefit from higher clock speeds, the GeForce GT 740M may perform adequately despite its narrower bus. The GT 740M also consumes less than half the power, making it preferable for thermally constrained laptops.

The production status of both GPUs is end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. The Quadro K3000M was released earlier, on 2012-05-31, while the GeForce GT 740M followed on 2013-06-19. Their positions in the market are historical, but the benchmark data remains useful for understanding how these mobile GPUs compare in raw compute terms.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GK104 (Quadro) vs. GK208 (GeForce)
• Architecture: Kepler (Quadro) vs. Kepler 2.0 (GeForce)
• Transistors: 3,540 million (Quadro) vs. 1,020 million (GeForce)
• Die Size: 294 mm² (Quadro) vs. 87 mm² (GeForce)
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² (Quadro) vs. 11.7M / mm² (GeForce)
• Base Clock: 654 MHz (Quadro) vs. 980 MHz (GeForce)
• Boost Clock: 654 MHz (Quadro) vs. 1033 MHz (GeForce)
• Memory Clock: 2.8 Gbps effective (Quadro) vs. 1800 Mbps effective (GeForce)
• Memory Type: GDDR5 (Quadro) vs. DDR3 (GeForce)
• Bus Width: 256 bit (Quadro) vs. 64 bit (GeForce)
• Bandwidth: 89.60 GB/s (Quadro) vs. 14.40 GB/s (GeForce)
• Shading Units: 576 (Quadro) vs. 384 (GeForce)
• TMUs: 48 (Quadro) vs. 32 (GeForce)
• ROPs: 32 (Quadro) vs. 8 (GeForce)
• Pixel Rate: 7.848 GPixel/s (Quadro) vs. 8.264 GPixel/s (GeForce)
• Texture Rate: 31.39 GTexel/s (Quadro) vs. 33.06 GTexel/s (GeForce)
• FP32: 753.4 GFLOPS (Quadro) vs. 793.3 GFLOPS (GeForce)
• TDP: 75 W (Quadro) vs. 33 W (GeForce)
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) (Quadro) vs. PCIe 3.0 x8 (GeForce)
• Release Date: 2012-05-31 (Quadro) vs. 2013-06-19 (GeForce)
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M (Quadro) vs. GeForce 600M (GeForce)
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M (Quadro) vs. GeForce 800M (GeForce)

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins with a score of 4241, beating the GeForce GT 740M's 3974 by 6.7%.

Q: Does the GeForce GT 740M have any benchmark advantage over the Quadro K3000M?

A: The GeForce GT 740M has a higher pixel rate (8.264 GPixel/s vs. 7.848 GPixel/s), texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s vs. 31.39 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (793.3 GFLOPS vs. 753.4 GFLOPS), despite losing the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the GeForce GT 740M provides 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 interface, a sixfold difference.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GeForce GT 740M has 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The GeForce GT 740M has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, making the GeForce more power-efficient.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Quadro K3000M was released on 2012-05-31, and the GeForce GT 740M on 2013-06-19.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins in memory bandwidth, raw shader count, and the direct OpenCL benchmark. Its 256-bit GDDR5 bus and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth make it the stronger choice for workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, such as large texture sets, high-resolution framebuffers, or compute tasks that repeatedly access memory. The 576 shading units and 48 TMUs suggest it can handle more parallel geometry and texture work, even if its lower clocks reduce peak throughput. The 32 ROPs also enable better fill-rate performance in scenarios that stress raster operations, such as antialiasing or multi-sample rendering.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M wins in clock speed, power efficiency, and raw throughput metrics. Its boost clock of 1033 MHz, compared to the Quadro's flat 654 MHz, allows it to achieve higher pixel rate (8.264 GPixel/s), texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (793.3 GFLOPS). For compute tasks that are ALU-bound and do not rely heavily on memory bandwidth, the GT 740M can outperform the Quadro despite its narrower bus. Its 33 W TDP also makes it suitable for thinner laptops with less cooling capacity, whereas the Quadro's 75 W demands a more robust thermal solution.

The database also shows the GT 740M has a Vulkan score of 3459, which the Quadro lacks entirely. This means the GeForce has at least one recorded API-level result that the Quadro cannot match. The Quadro, however, maintains a higher average benchmark score (4241 vs. 3717) and a better percentile ranking (25th vs. 22nd). The choice ultimately hinges on whether the workload favors memory bandwidth (Quadro) or clock-driven compute throughput and power economy (GeForce).