GeForce GT 740 vs MX350

Place in the ranking	538	707
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.19
Power efficiency	25.22	4.14
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP107	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	10 February 2020 (4 years ago)	29 May 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$89

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 cores	640	384
Core clock speed	747 MHz	993 MHz
Boost clock speed	937 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	64 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.98	31.78
Floating-point processing power	1.199 TFLOPS	0.7626 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	32

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	56.06 GB/s	80.19 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	No outputs	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
HDMI	-	+

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.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	6.1	3.0

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.

GeForce MX350 7.31
+90.4%

GT 740 3.84

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.

GeForce MX350 2812
+90.3%

GT 740 1478

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.

GeForce MX350 4371
+124%

GT 740 1950

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.

GeForce MX350 13548
+216%

GT 740 4292

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GeForce MX350 13921
+229%

GT 740 4230

GeekBench 5 CUDA

GeForce MX350 12572
+284%

GT 740 3273

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	27 +92.9%	14−16 −92.9%
1440p	31 +93.8%	16−18 −93.8%
4K	26 +117%	12−14 −117%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	6.36
1440p	no data	5.56
4K	no data	7.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14 +100%	7−8 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Elden Ring	20 +100%	10−11 −100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27 +92.9%	14−16 −92.9%
Counter-Strike 2	11 +120%	5−6 −120%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +100%	16−18 −100%
Metro Exodus	28 +100%	14−16 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	32 +100%	16−18 −100%
Valorant	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +91.7%	12−14 −91.7%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
Dota 2	51 +113%	24−27 −113%
Elden Ring	13 +117%	6−7 −117%
Far Cry 5	50 +108%	24−27 −108%
Fortnite	40−45 +105%	21−24 −105%
Forza Horizon 4	25 +108%	12−14 −108%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 +94.4%	18−20 −94.4%
Metro Exodus	17 +113%	8−9 −113%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	85 +113%	40−45 −113%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +91.7%	12−14 −91.7%
Valorant	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
World of Tanks	120 +100%	60−65 −100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 +113%	8−9 −113%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Cyberpunk 2077	3 +200%	1−2 −200%
Dota 2	76 +117%	35−40 −117%
Far Cry 5	40 +90.5%	21−24 −90.5%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +111%	9−10 −111%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 +96.7%	30−33 −96.7%
Valorant	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Elden Ring	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
World of Tanks	50−55 +96.3%	27−30 −96.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Valorant	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Elden Ring	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	30 +114%	14−16 −114%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Fortnite	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Valorant	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%

This is how GeForce MX350 and GT 740 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX350 is 93% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX350 is 94% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX350 is 117% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.31	3.84
Recency	10 February 2020	29 May 2014
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	64 Watt

GeForce MX350 has a 90.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 220% lower power consumption.

GT 740, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 740 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX350 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 740 is a desktop one.

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