GeForce RTX 2070 Super vs GT 735M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 735M with GeForce RTX 2070 Super, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 Super outperforms GT 735M by a whopping 2679% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 979 | 96 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 82 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 35.95 |
| Power efficiency | 3.60 | 15.36 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 April 2013 (12 years ago) | 9 July 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 384 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 1605 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 889 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 215 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.40 | 283.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4416 TFLOPS | 9.062 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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:
| 900p | 17
−2547%
| 450−500
+2547%
|
| Full HD | 21
−529%
| 132
+529%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−3900%
| 80
+3900%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−5100%
| 52
+5100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.78 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.24 |
| 4K | no data | 9.60 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−34000%
|
341
+34000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3033%
|
94
+3033%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−2183%
|
137
+2183%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−3833%
|
118
+3833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−31500%
|
316
+31500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2700%
|
84
+2700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2975%
|
123
+2975%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−3533%
|
218
+3533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1833%
|
174
+1833%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7400%
|
150
+7400%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−1867%
|
118
+1867%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1760%
|
186
+1760%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−697%
|
279
+697%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−3333%
|
103
+3333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−19300%
|
194
+19300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 32
−769%
|
270−280
+769%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2500%
|
78
+2500%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−621%
|
137
+621%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2825%
|
117
+2825%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−3117%
|
193
+3117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1811%
|
172
+1811%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−6550%
|
133
+6550%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−1483%
|
95
+1483%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−7150%
|
145
+7150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2900%
|
90
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1550%
|
165
+1550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2486%
|
181
+2486%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−671%
|
270
+671%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95
+3067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2333%
|
73
+2333%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−579%
|
129
+579%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110
+2650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1600%
|
153
+1600%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−1033%
|
68
+1033%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1440%
|
154
+1440%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1329%
|
100
+1329%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−454%
|
194
+454%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2700%
|
168
+2700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−3000%
|
124
+3000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−2970%
|
300−350
+2970%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−994%
|
170−180
+994%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−2822%
|
263
+2822%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 47 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−9700%
|
98
+9700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3025%
|
125
+3025%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−8600%
|
85−90
+8600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3800%
|
117
+3800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−520%
|
93
+520%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−3125%
|
258
+3125%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−6300%
|
128
+6300%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−3700%
|
38
+3700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3200%
|
66
+3200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1833%
|
58
+1833%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
This is how GT 735M and RTX 2070 Super compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 Super is 2547% faster in 900p
- RTX 2070 Super is 529% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 Super is 3900% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 Super is 5100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 2070 Super is 34000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2070 Super performs better in 52 tests (83%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (17%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.56 | 43.35 |
| Recency | 1 April 2013 | 9 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 215 Watt |
GT 735M has 551.5% lower power consumption.
RTX 2070 Super, on the other hand, has a 2678.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2070 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 735M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 735M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 2070 Super is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
