ATI FirePro M7740 vs Quadro K4100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4100M and FirePro M7740, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K4100M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.15
+236%

K4100M outperforms ATI M7740 by a whopping 236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking547867
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.51no data
Power efficiency4.902.43
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGK104M97
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)4 August 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 no data

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 cores1152640
Core clock speed706 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million826 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate67.7820.80
Floating-point processing power1.627 TFLOPS0.832 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs9632

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 sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz846 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/s54.14 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1210.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+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.

K4100M 7.15
+236%
ATI M7740 2.13

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

K4100M 19909
+200%
ATI M7740 6626

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 HD48
+243%
14−16
−243%
4K13
+333%
3−4
−333%

Cost per frame, $

1080p31.23no data
4K115.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+422%
9−10
−422%
Hitman 3 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+133%
18−20
−133%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+50%
35−40
−50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+422%
9−10
−422%
Hitman 3 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+133%
18−20
−133%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 67
+458%
12−14
−458%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+50%
35−40
−50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+422%
9−10
−422%
Hitman 3 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+133%
18−20
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+50%
35−40
−50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Hitman 3 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+275%
12−14
−275%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

This is how K4100M and ATI M7740 compete in popular games:

  • K4100M is 243% faster in 1080p
  • K4100M is 333% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K4100M is 950% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, K4100M surpassed ATI M7740 in all 54 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.15 2.13
Recency 23 July 2013 4 August 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 60 Watt

K4100M has a 235.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

ATI M7740, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4100M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M7740 in performance tests.


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

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.


NVIDIA Quadro K4100M
Quadro K4100M
ATI FirePro M7740
FirePro M7740

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.2 91 vote

Rate Quadro K4100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate FirePro M7740 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.