GeForce GT 740M vs Radeon R9 370

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 370 with GeForce GT 740M, including specs and performance data.

R9 370
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 110 Watt
10.68
+500%

R9 370 outperforms 740M by a whopping 500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking450933
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.824.34
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameTrinidadGK208
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (10 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 cores1280384
Core clock speed925 MHz980 MHz
Boost clock speed975 MHz980 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0031.36
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS0.7526 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs8032
L1 Cache384 KB32 KB
L2 Cache512 KB128 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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3/GDDR5
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s14.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp 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.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA-+

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.

R9 370 10.68
+500%
GT 740M 1.78

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.

R9 370 4722
+500%
Samples: 3
GT 740M 787
Samples: 4588

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.

R9 370 5249
+356%
GT 740M 1151

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 HD45
+181%
16
−181%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 54
+0%
54
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+0%
7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R9 370 and GT 740M compete in popular games:

  • R9 370 is 181% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.68 1.78
Recency 5 May 2015 20 June 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 110 Watt 45 Watt

R9 370 has a 500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 740M, on the other hand, has 144.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 740M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 370 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 740M is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 370
Radeon R9 370
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M
GeForce GT 740M

Other comparisons

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.


4 445 votes

Rate Radeon R9 370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 1175 votes

Rate GeForce GT 740M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 370 or GeForce GT 740M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.