GeForce GT 740M vs Quadro 5010M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5010M with GeForce GT 740M, including specs and performance data.
5010M outperforms GT 740M by a whopping 115% 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 | 720 | 932 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.07 | 4.34 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 20 June 2013 (12 years ago) |
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 31.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 0.7526 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 KB |
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 size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | DDR3/GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 14.4 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 | 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 | - | + |
| 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 | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 38
+138%
| 16−18
−138%
|
| Full HD | 59
+269%
| 16
−269%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+44.7%
|
35−40
−44.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+35.2%
|
54
−35.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7
−85.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+44.7%
|
35−40
−44.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+200%
|
4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+44.7%
|
35−40
−44.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+138%
|
12−14
−138%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+231%
|
12−14
−231%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how Quadro 5010M and GT 740M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 5010M is 138% faster in 900p
- Quadro 5010M is 269% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Quadro 5010M is 467% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro 5010M surpassed GT 740M in all 53 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.82 | 1.78 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 20 June 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro 5010M has a 114.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 740M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 122.2% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 5010M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 740M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 5010M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 740M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
