GeForce GT 740 vs Iris Plus Graphics 640

Place in the ranking	703	705
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.19
Power efficiency	17.68	4.11
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT3e	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 January 2017 (7 years ago)	29 May 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	300 MHz	993 MHz
Boost clock speed	1100 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	64 Watt
Texture fill rate	52.80	31.78
Floating-point processing power	0.8448 TFLOPS	0.7626 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	16
TMUs	48	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).

Interface	Ring Bus	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin

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	DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	80.19 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	Portable Device Dependent	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.1.126
CUDA	-	3.0

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 3.87
+0.8%

GT 740 3.84

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 1489
+0.7%

GT 740 1478

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 1394

GT 740 1950
+39.9%

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

22
+4.8%

21−24

−4.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

4.24

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+16.7%

6−7

−16.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Battlefield 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%
Hitman 3	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +5%	40−45 −5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Battlefield 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%
Hitman 3	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +5%	40−45 −5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%
Hitman 3	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +5%	40−45 −5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+11.1%

9−10
−11.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +14.3%	21−24 −14.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+16.7%

6−7

−16.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 640 and GT 740 compete in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 640 is 5% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.87	3.84
Recency	3 January 2017	29 May 2014
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	64 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 640 has a 0.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 326.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Iris Plus Graphics 640 and GeForce GT 740.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 640 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 740 is a desktop one.

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