AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 represent two very different answers to the entry-level GPU question, and the recorded data paints a clear picture: the W2100 wins the only shared benchmark, and it does so while drawing far less power and running on a much more modern feature set. Both cards are end-of-life parts now, but the gap between them, in architecture, efficiency, and compute throughput, is worth examining in detail.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one common test between these two cards, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W2100 scores 4093 against the GT 545's 3594, a 13.9 percent advantage for the AMD card. That is not a marginal result at this tier; a double-digit lead in a general-purpose compute benchmark reflects a genuine generational gap between GCN 1.0 and Fermi 2.0 rather than run-to-run noise.

Context from the percentile rankings reinforces the point. The W2100 sits at the 25th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, while the GT 545 sits at the 21st. Both are low-tier parts by modern standards, but the W2100 is the stronger of the two in the recorded measurements. Its average benchmark score across the database is 4295, supported by a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497, a test the GT 545 has no recorded result for at all since it lacks Vulkan support. The GT 545's average stands at 3594, built entirely from its single OpenCL result.

The rivalry data frames each card's standing further. The W2100's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (average score 4282, 0.3 percent behind), the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, 0.6 percent behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, 1.3 percent behind), and, curiously, the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, 0.9 percent ahead), indicating the W2100 clusters among modest integrated-class competitors. The GT 545's neighbors include the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596, within 0.1 percent), the GeForce GT 735M (3616, 0.6 percent ahead), the GeForce GTX 1050 (3629, 1 percent ahead), and the Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.5 percent ahead). In short, the W2100 out-scores every one of the GT 545's nearest rivals on average, while the GT 545 trails several of the W2100's.

The head-to-head tally in the database reads one win for the W2100 and zero for the GT 545.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the shared benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100. It scored 4093 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3594 for the GT 545, a 13.9 percent lead.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The W2100, by a wide margin. Its TDP is 26 W against the GT 545's 70 W, and its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 250 W. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Not equally. The W2100 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GT 545 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0 and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The W2100 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 545 has 1536 MB of DDR3 on a wider 192-bit bus delivering 38.40 GB/s, so NVIDIA holds the bandwidth edge while AMD holds the capacity edge.

Q: When were these cards released, and are they still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The GT 545 launched first, in May 2011, and the W2100 followed in August 2014.

Q: Which card has the higher raw throughput figures?

A: It splits by workload. The W2100 leads in pixel fill rate (5.440 GPixel/s versus 4.320) and FP32 compute (435.2 GFLOPS versus 414.7). The GT 545 leads in texture fill rate (17.28 GTexel/s versus 13.60).

Architecture Differences

These cards come from different eras of GPU design. The FirePro W2100 is built on the Oland chip using AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. The GT 545 uses the GF116 chip under NVIDIA's Fermi 2.0 architecture, built at TSMC on a much older 40 nm process. That node gap shows up directly in the physical data: the W2100 packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GT 545 needs 1,170 million transistors spread across 238 mm², or 4.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD die is smaller, denser, and contains fewer transistors, yet delivers more measured compute performance.

The core counts reflect the two companies' competing shader philosophies of the time. GCN 1.0 gives the W2100 320 shading units running at a 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost clock, paired with 20 texture mapping units and 8 render output units. Fermi 2.0 gives the GT 545 just 144 shading units, with no listed base or boost clock, but a broader back end of 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. That back-end advantage is what produces the GT 545's higher texture fill rate of 17.28 GTexel/s, while the W2100's many GCN shader cores drive its higher FP32 output of 435.2 GFLOPS and higher pixel rate of 5.440 GPixel/s.

Lineage also differs. The W2100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) professional generation, successor to the FirePro Terascale line and predecessor to the Radeon Pro Polaris series. The GT 545 belongs to the consumer GeForce 500 generation, sitting between the GeForce 400 and GeForce 600 lines. Neither card carries RT cores or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The specification table diverges in nearly every row that matters:

• Process: 28 nm (W2100) versus 40 nm (GT 545)
• Transistors and die: 950 million on 77 mm² versus 1,170 million on 238 mm²
• Shading units: 320 versus 144
• TMUs: 20 versus 24
• ROPs: 8 versus 16
• Clocks: 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost on the W2100; no core clocks listed for the GT 545. Memory clocks are 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) versus 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective)
• Memory: 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 28.80 GB/s versus 1536 MB DDR3 on a 192-bit bus at 38.40 GB/s
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display outputs: 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA
• TDP: 26 W versus 70 W
• Suggested PSU: 200 W versus 250 W
• Dimensions: 168 mm long and 69 mm tall versus 145 mm long with no recorded height
• API support: Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 feature level 11_1 versus no Vulkan and feature level 11_0, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6
• Release date: August 2014 versus May 2011
• Launch MSRP: none recorded for the W2100; 149 USD for the GT 545

Both cards share single-slot width and need no external power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W2100 wins on compute and efficiency. Its 13.9 percent OpenCL victory, its higher average benchmark score, and its higher Vulkan result where the GT 545 cannot compete at all make it the clear choice for GPGPU workloads, even modest ones. It also wins decisively on power: 26 W against 70 W is nearly a threefold reduction in TDP for more measured performance, which matters in small form factor or multi-card professional systems. Its 2 GB frame buffer, dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, newer PCIe 3.0 interface, and Vulkan 1.2.170 support make it the more future-proof and workstation-friendly part, consistent with its FirePro heritage.

The GT 545 wins on memory bandwidth and legacy connectivity. Its 38.40 GB/s of bandwidth comfortably exceeds the W2100's 28.80 GB/s, and its wider 192-bit bus with 16 ROPs and 24 TMUs gives it the higher texture fill rate, 17.28 GTexel/s versus 13.60. For older systems, its DVI, HDMI 1.3a, and VGA outputs offer display flexibility that the DisplayPort-only W2100 cannot match without adapters, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is a natural fit for motherboards of its era. It is also the shorter card at 145 mm.

Overall, the database verdict is straightforward. The W2100 delivers more benchmark performance per watt, a newer feature set, and the only head-to-head win. The GT 545's advantages are confined to memory subsystem figures and legacy display outputs. For any workload captured in the recorded data, the AMD card is the stronger performer.