NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The data shows the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M edges out the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 in the only shared benchmark, but each card serves a fundamentally different purpose based on its design and target platform. The GT 740M wins the head-to-head OpenCL test, but the Quadro 2000 remains a viable option for legacy workstation tasks where its 128-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth matter more than raw compute throughput.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M is the superior choice for modern general-purpose compute, as it wins the only direct comparison with a score of 3974 versus 3898 for the Quadro 2000, a 1.9% advantage. However, the GT 740M's average benchmark score of 3717 is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 3459, which the Quadro 2000 cannot produce at all — the Quadro lacks a Vulkan score entirely. For users who need a desktop workstation card with DisplayPort outputs and a 178 mm single-slot form factor, the Quadro 2000 is the only option; the GT 740M is an MXM module with no fixed dimensions and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The Quadro 2000 also delivers significantly higher memory bandwidth at 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, making it better for bandwidth-bound professional workloads despite losing the compute race. In short: pick the GT 740M for raw OpenCL compute in a laptop, pick the Quadro 2000 for a legacy desktop workstation requiring specific display connectivity and higher memory throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip on the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. The GT 740M uses the GK208 chip on the Kepler 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process also at TSMC, with 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 87 mm² die. This gives the GT 740M a transistor density of 11.7M / mm² versus just 4.9M / mm² for the Quadro 2000, reflecting the newer manufacturing node.

The compute layouts differ substantially. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the GT 740M packs 384 shading units (double), 32 TMUs (same), and only 8 ROPs (half). The GT 740M has higher theoretical peak rates: 793.3 GFLOPS FP32 versus 480.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000, 33.06 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s, and 8.264 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s. However, the Quadro 2000 counters with a 128-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory, while the GT 740M is limited to a 64-bit bus with DDR3. This explains the massive bandwidth gap: 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro 2000 has no listed base or boost clock, with memory running at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The GT 740M has explicit clocks: 980 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GT 740M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro 2000 does not, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 740M wins in raw compute throughput across every measured rate: FP32 (793.3 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS), texture rate (33.06 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s), and pixel rate (8.264 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s). It also wins the OpenCL benchmark decisively, scoring 3974 versus 3898. The GT 740M has double the shading units (384 vs 192), which directly benefits shader-heavy workloads. Its 2 GB memory capacity doubles the Quadro's 1 GB, allowing larger datasets to reside locally. Additionally, the GT 740M supports the Vulkan API, opening up modern cross-platform graphics workloads that the Quadro 2000 cannot run.

The Quadro 2000 wins in memory bandwidth efficiency and platform fit. Its 41.60 GB/s bandwidth is nearly 3x the GT 740M's 14.40 GB/s, despite having half the memory capacity. The 128-bit bus versus 64-bit bus is the primary driver. The Quadro 2000 also has double the ROPs (16 vs 8), which helps with fill-rate-bound operations. For desktop use, the Quadro 2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, whereas the GT 740M's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" — meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The Quadro 2000's single-slot design and 178 mm length fit standard workstation chassis, while the GT 740M is an MXM Module for laptops. The Quadro 2000 also requires a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the GT 740M has no such requirement listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3974 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The GT 740M wins by 1.9%.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000 support the Vulkan API?

A: No. The Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed in its API specifications. The GT 740M supports Vulkan version 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has significantly higher 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 with GDDR5 memory versus the GT 740M's 64-bit bus with DDR3.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, while the GT 740M has a TDP of 33 W. The GT 740M consumes nearly half the power.

Q: Can the GT 740M be used in a desktop workstation?

A: The data shows the GT 740M is an MXM Module with "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs and no listed dimensions. It is designed for portable devices, not standard desktop slots. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card with DVI and DisplayPort outputs.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GT 740M has 384 shading units, exactly double the Quadro 2000's 192 shading units. This contributes to its higher FP32 compute rate of 793.3 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M wins with a score of 3974 against the Quadro 2000's 3898, a delta of -1.9% from the Quadro's perspective. This 76-point gap is relatively small, but it is consistent with the GT 740M's architectural advantages: it has 384 shading units versus 192, and its FP32 throughput of 793.3 GFLOPS is 65% higher than the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS.

However, the GT 740M's average benchmark score of 3717 is actually lower than its OpenCL score, because it also has a Vulkan score of 3459 in its benchmark suite. This Vulkan result pulls its average down by about 6.5%. The Quadro 2000 has only one benchmark entry, so its average equals its OpenCL score of 3898. This means the Quadro 2000's average (3898) is actually 4.9% higher than the GT 740M's average (3717), even though the GT 740M wins the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Looking at nearest rivals for context: the GT 740M's average score of 3717 places it right beside the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718, 0% delta) and ahead of the GeForce 825M (3694, 0.6%) and AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.9%). The Quadro 2000's average of 3898 sits near the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.4%) and just behind the Quadro K2000D (3919, -0.5%) and Quadro 2000D (3930, -0.8%). The GT 740M's percentile ranking of 22 is slightly below the Quadro 2000's 23rd percentile, indicating the Quadro sits marginally higher among all GPUs despite losing the direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The process node jumps from 40 nm (Quadro) to 28 nm (GT 740M), with die size shrinking from 238 mm² to 87 mm² while transistor count drops from 1,170 million to 1,020 million. The GT 740M has a base clock of 980 MHz and boost of 1033 MHz, while the Quadro 2000 lists no base or boost clocks. Memory configuration is starkly different: 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for the Quadro versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for the GT 740M. Bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Compute resources favor the GT 740M in shading units (384 vs 192) and texture units are equal (32 each), but the Quadro has double the ROPs (16 vs 8). Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 8.264 GPixel/s for the GT 740M; texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 33.06 GTexel/s; FP32 is 480.0 GFLOPS versus 793.3 GFLOPS. Power draw is 62 W for the Quadro versus 33 W for the GT 740M. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GT 740M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI + 2x DisplayPort on the Quadro versus "Portable Device Dependent" on the GT 740M. The Quadro has a 178 mm length and 111 mm height, while the GT 740M has no listed dimensions. API support is identical for DirectX (12 (11_0)) and OpenGL (4.6), but the GT 740M adds Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 2000 launched on 2010-12-23 with a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the GT 740M launched on 2013-06-19 with no MSRP. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro succeeding the Quadro FX Tesla and preceding Quadro Kepler, while the GT 740M succeeds GeForce 600M and precedes GeForce 800M.