GeForce GT 740M vs GTX 260M

Place in performance ranking	1072	838
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.07	0.16
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	N10E-GT	N14P-GV2, ...
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	2 March 2009 (15 years ago)	1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Current price	$109	$310

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 740M has 129% better value for money than GTX 260M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	112	384
CUDA cores	112	no data
Core clock speed	550 MHz	810 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	980 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	31 billion/sec	31.36
Floating-point performance	308 gflops	752.6 gflops
Gigaflops	462	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 260M and GeForce GT 740M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	medium sized
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
SLI options	2-way	no data
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	no 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 type	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Standard memory configuration	no data	DDR3/GDDR5
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 950 MHz	1600 - 1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	61 GB/s	14.4 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 Connectors	DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI	No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
LVDS signal support	no data	Up to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display support	no data	Up to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
HDMI	+	+
HDCP content protection	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	no data	+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	no data	+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	no data	+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	no data	+
Power management	8.0	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 API
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	+	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 260M 0.98

GT 740M 2.04
+108%

GT 740M outperforms GTX 260M by 108% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 260M 379

GT 740M 791
+109%

GT 740M outperforms GTX 260M by 109% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 260M 4901

GT 740M 6591
+34.5%

GT 740M outperforms GTX 260M by 34% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 HD

29
+81.3%

−81.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Hitman 3	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	3−4
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Hitman 3	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	3−4
Metro Exodus	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −133%	7 +133%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −33.3%	4 +33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how GTX 260M and GT 740M compete in popular games:

GTX 260M is 81.3% faster than GT 740M in 1080p

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

in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 740M is 200% faster than the GTX 260M.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 740M is ahead in 22 tests (81%)
there's a draw in 5 tests (19%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.98	2.04
Recency	2 March 2009	1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt