GeForce GT 740 vs Quadro 2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 2000 with GeForce GT 740, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 2000
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 62 Watt
2.46

GT 740 outperforms 2000 by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking837705
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.150.19
Power efficiency2.724.11
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF106GK107
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date24 December 2010 (13 years ago)29 May 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 740 has 27% better value for money than Quadro 2000.

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 cores192384
Core clock speed625 MHz993 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)62 Watt64 Watt
Texture fill rate20.0031.78
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS0.7626 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length178 mm145 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed650 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth41.6 GB/s80.19 GB/s

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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA2.13.0

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.

Quadro 2000 2.46
GT 740 3.84
+56.1%

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.

Quadro 2000 946
GT 740 1478
+56.2%

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.

Quadro 2000 3884
GT 740 4312
+11%

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Quadro 2000 12
+20%
GT 740 10

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.46 3.84
Recency 24 December 2010 29 May 2014
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 62 Watt 64 Watt

Quadro 2000 has 3.2% lower power consumption.

GT 740, on the other hand, has a 56.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GT 740 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation graphics 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.

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.


NVIDIA Quadro 2000
Quadro 2000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740
GeForce GT 740

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.4 313 votes

Rate Quadro 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 1175 votes

Rate GeForce GT 740 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.