NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 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 4 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 35% higher core clock speed: 810 MHz vs 602 MHz
- 2x more pipelines: 384 vs 192
- Around 63% better floating-point performance: 752.6 gflops vs 462.3 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 3.3x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 150 Watt
- Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1536 MB
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1802 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 2.3x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 149 vs 64
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 April 2013 vs 11 November 2008 |
Core clock speed | 810 MHz vs 602 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 vs 192 |
Floating-point performance | 752.6 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 150 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1536 MB |
Memory clock speed | 1802 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 149 vs 64 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
- 2.5x more texture fill rate: 38.5 GTexel / s vs 15.68 GTexel / s
- Around 24% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 986 vs 798
- 3.9x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 15302 vs 3881
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3339
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3339
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 38.5 GTexel / s vs 15.68 GTexel / s |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 986 vs 798 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 15302 vs 3881 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3339 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3339 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 798 | 986 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 149 | 64 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3881 | 15302 |
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 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1589 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3235 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3339 | 3358 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 345 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GK107 | GT200B |
Launch date | 1 April 2013 | 11 November 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 1309 | 1312 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $1,799 | |
Price now | $149.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 8.67 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 602 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 752.6 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
Texture fill rate | 15.68 GTexel / s | 38.5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 150 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
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 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Length | 267 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1536 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 76.8 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1802 MHz | 1600 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 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 |