Quadro K2000M vs ATI FirePro M7740

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro M7740 and Quadro K2000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI M7740
2009
1 GB GDDR5, 60 Watt
2.14

K2000M outperforms ATI M7740 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking867818
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.39
Power efficiency2.463.30
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameM97GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date4 August 2009 (15 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$265.27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores640384
Core clock speed650 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors826 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate20.8023.84
Floating-point processing power0.832 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed846 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth54.14 GB/s28.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX10.1 (10_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.15.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

ATI M7740 2.14
K2000M 2.63
+22.9%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

ATI M7740 6626
K2000M 7947
+19.9%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD18−20
−33.3%
24
+33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data11.05

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Elden Ring 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Elden Ring 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Fortnite 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
World of Tanks 40−45
−53.7%
63
+53.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Valorant 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 1−2
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1

This is how ATI M7740 and K2000M compete in popular games:

  • K2000M is 33% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K2000M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K2000M is ahead in 34 tests (67%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (33%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.14 2.63
Recency 4 August 2009 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 55 Watt

K2000M has a 22.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 9.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M7740 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI FirePro M7740
FirePro M7740
NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


5 2 votes

Rate FirePro M7740 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 35 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.