GeForce GTS 350M vs GT 740M

Place in the ranking	875	1089
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.32	2.62
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK208	GT215
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	20 June 2013 (11 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 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	96
Core clock speed	980 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	980 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	915 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.36	16.00
Floating-point processing power	0.7526 TFLOPS	0.24 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	360
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	32	32

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	medium sized	large
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-II
SLI options	-	+
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Standard memory configuration	DDR3/GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	Up to 2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	51.2 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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 Connectors	No outputs	DisplayPortLVDSHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGA
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP content protection	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
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	+	-
Power management	no data	8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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.

GT 740M 2.06
+94.3%

GTS 350M 1.06

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.

GT 740M 796
+95.6%

GTS 350M 407

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 HD

15
+114%

7−8

−114%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +38.5%	12−14 −38.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +12.5%	30−35 −12.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +38.5%	12−14 −38.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +100%	10−12 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +12.5%	30−35 −12.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +38.5%	12−14 −38.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 −175%	10−12 +175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +12.5%	30−35 −12.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how GT 740M and GTS 350M compete in popular games:

GT 740M is 114% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 740M is 300% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 350M is 175% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 740M is ahead in 40 tests (93%)
GTS 350M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.06	1.06
Recency	20 June 2013	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	28 Watt

GT 740M has a 94.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTS 350M, on the other hand, has 60.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 740M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 350M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.