Intel UHD Graphics 710 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics 710 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. Based on benchmark data, the GT 545 holds a narrow lead in the single available head-to-head test, yet the UHD 710 offers a more modern feature set. The data shows a near-tie in raw compute performance, with the final choice hinging on platform compatibility and architectural priorities rather than a decisive performance gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594 against the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3496. This translates to a delta of -2.7% for the Intel part, meaning the GT 545 is about 2.7% faster in this specific compute workload. While the GT 545 wins this test, the margin is slim and falls well within run-to-run variance for most synthetic benchmarks.

Looking at the broader performance context, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has an average score of 3792 across all its benchmark entries, while the GT 545 averages 3594. This puts the Intel part roughly 5.5% ahead in aggregate, despite losing the specific OpenCL test. The discrepancy suggests the UHD 710 performs relatively better in Vulkan workloads, where it scores 4088 — a figure that has no direct GT 545 counterpart, as the NVIDIA card lacks Vulkan support entirely.

In terms of overall standing, both GPUs sit near the bottom of the database. The UHD 710 ranks in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 545 sits just below at the 21st percentile. Their nearest rivals reinforce this positioning: the UHD 710 is within 2% of cards like the GeForce GTX 650 (3823 average, -0.8% delta) and GeForce MX110 (3834, -1.1% delta), while the GT 545 is within 1.5% of the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596, -0.1% delta) and GeForce GT 735M (3616, -0.6% delta). These are all low-end or legacy parts, confirming that neither of these GPUs is competitive with modern mainstream hardware.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is built on Alder Lake silicon using a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 uses the GF116 chip on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is stark — the Intel part packs its logic into a much smaller transistor footprint, though the GT 545’s discrete die size is listed at 238 mm² with 1,170 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 4.9M per mm².

The compute configurations differ significantly. The UHD 710 has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The GT 545, by contrast, offers 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA card has 12.5% more shading units, 3x the TMUs, and 2x the ROPs. However, the Intel part compensates with much higher clock speeds: it runs at a base of 300 MHz with a boost up to 1300 MHz, whereas the GT 545’s core clocks are not listed. The memory situation is also fundamentally different — the UHD 710 uses system shared memory with dependent bandwidth, while the GT 545 has dedicated 1536 MB of DDR3 on a 192-bit bus with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The Intel architecture is Generation 12.2, which supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GT 545’s Fermi 2.0 architecture only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. This is a critical differentiator for modern applications. The UHD 710 also reports much higher pixel and texture rates: 10.40 GPixel/s and 10.40 GTexel/s respectively, versus the GT 545’s 4.320 GPixel/s and 17.28 GTexel/s. The Intel part’s FP32 output is 332.8 GFLOPS, while the GT 545 reaches 414.7 GFLOPS — the NVIDIA card is about 24.6% higher in raw floating-point throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins on modern API support and efficiency. Its Vulkan 1.4 capability means it can run applications that the GT 545 simply cannot, and its DirectX 12_1 support is a full tier above the GT 545’s 11_0. The UHD 710 also has a dramatically lower power draw at 15 W versus 70 W for the GT 545, making it far better suited for compact or battery-powered systems. Its boost clock of 1300 MHz, combined with the high pixel rate, suggests it handles fill-rate-bound tasks more efficiently despite lower raw shader count.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 wins on raw compute and texture throughput. Its FP32 output of 414.7 GFLOPS is meaningfully higher, and its texture rate of 17.28 GTexel/s nearly doubles the Intel part’s 10.40 GTexel/s. The dedicated memory subsystem — 1536 MB of DDR3 with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth — provides consistent, predictable performance that doesn’t depend on system memory speeds. The GT 545 also has a higher shading unit count (144 vs 128) and more ROPs (16 vs 8), which can help in certain geometry-heavy or multi-sample anti-aliasing scenarios. Its single-slot form factor with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA outputs gives it flexibility for older displays.

In terms of benchmark wins, the GT 545 takes the only head-to-head test (Geekbench OpenCL), but the UHD 710 counters with a strong Vulkan score that the NVIDIA card cannot match. The average benchmark scores favor the Intel part, suggesting it performs better across a wider range of workloads.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 is the better choice for users who need maximum raw compute and texture performance in legacy applications. It wins the OpenCL benchmark, offers 24.6% higher FP32 throughput, and provides 3x the TMUs and 2x the ROPs. Its dedicated 1536 MB frame buffer with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth ensures stable performance without competing with the CPU for system memory. The GT 545’s launch MSRP was 149 USD, which reflects its original positioning as a low-end discrete card.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the better choice for users building a modern system with an Alder Lake processor who need basic graphics output without a dedicated card. Its 15 W power draw, Vulkan 1.4 support, and DirectX 12_1 compatibility make it far more future-proof for contemporary software. The 10 nm process node gives it a massive efficiency advantage, and its 22nd percentile ranking is marginally better than the GT 545’s 21st. However, the UHD 710’s performance is entirely dependent on system memory bandwidth, which can be a bottleneck in poorly configured systems.

For any serious gaming or GPU-accelerated workload, neither card is competitive — both sit in the bottom quarter of all GPUs. The GT 545’s nearest rival, the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, is only 0.1% faster on average, which shows how far GPU technology has come since 2011. The UHD 710’s nearest rival, the GTX 650, is 0.8% faster, and even that card is over a decade old. Users should treat these as display adapters rather than performance parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594, which is 2.7% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3496.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 has no Vulkan support listed in its specifications.

Q: How much memory does the GT 545 have?

A: The GT 545 has 1536 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 192-bit bus with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 710 uses system shared memory.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 has a TDP of 70 W. The GT 545 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has better raw FP32 performance?

A: The GT 545 achieves 414.7 GFLOPS, which is higher than the UHD 710’s 332.8 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is built on a 10 nm process at Intel, while the GT 545 uses a 40 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics 710 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Generation 12.2 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 4.9M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 128 | 144 |

| TMUs | 8 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1536 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 38.40 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | 4.320 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 10.40 GTexel/s | 17.28 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 332.8 GFLOPS | 414.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x VGA |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | Not listed |

| Length | Not listed | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2011-05-13 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | GeForce 400 |

| Successor | Not listed | GeForce 600 |