NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- 3x more pipelines: 384 vs 128
- Around 96% better floating-point performance: 752.6 gflops vs 384.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 793 vs 636
- Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 149 vs 128
- Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3339 vs 2172
- Around 54% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3339 vs 2172
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 April 2013 vs 1 February 2010 |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 128 |
| Floating-point performance | 752.6 gflops vs 384.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 793 vs 636 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 149 vs 128 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3339 vs 2172 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 vs 2172 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
- Around 85% higher core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 810 MHz
- 2.4x more texture fill rate: 38 billion / sec vs 15.68 GTexel / s
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 810 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 38 billion / sec vs 15.68 GTexel / s |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 793 | 636 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 149 | 128 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3866 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.392 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 157.479 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.864 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 16.101 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 44.77 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1589 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3235 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3339 | 2172 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1589 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3235 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 | 2172 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 345 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
| Code name | GK107 | G92 |
| Launch date | 1 April 2013 | 1 February 2010 |
| Place in performance rating | 1301 | 1304 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 752.6 gflops | 384.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 128 |
| Texture fill rate | 15.68 GTexel / s | 38 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 128 | |
| Gigaflops | 576 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
| HDCP content protection | ||
| HDMI | ||
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | ||
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 61 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1802 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3 / GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | ||
| CUDA | ||
| Direct Compute | ||
| FXAA | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
