NVIDIA GeForce 825M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 are both end-of-life discrete graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they represent different architectural eras and design philosophies. The 825M is a mobile-oriented chip from the GeForce 800M generation, built for efficiency, while the GT 545 is a desktop card from the GeForce 500 series, designed for a different performance envelope. The benchmark data available provides a single, clear point of comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark between the two is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694 points against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545's 3594 points. This gives the 825M a 2.8% advantage in raw compute performance. While this is a modest lead, it is consistent across the single data point. The deltaPct value of 2.8% indicates that in this specific test, the 825M is the clear winner.

To contextualize this margin, it is helpful to look at the nearest rivals for each card. The 825M’s score of 3694 places it just 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717) and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718). It is also 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649). This suggests the 825M sits in a tightly contested performance tier where small percentage differences are the norm. Its lead over the GT 545 is more than double the margin it holds over the Radeon HD 6770, indicating that the GT 545 is firmly in a lower performance class.

The GT 545’s score of 3594, on the other hand, places it in a slightly different competitive bracket. It is a mere 0.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596), which is a striking comparison given the massive generational gap between those two products. It is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3616) and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629). The GT 545’s closest rival in this dataset is the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, which highlights how benchmark scores can occasionally group disparate hardware. However, the GT 545 is 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6770, whereas the 825M is 1.2% ahead of that same card. This reinforces the conclusion that the 825M holds a consistent, if small, performance advantage over the GT 545.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a single benchmark, and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M wins it. There are no tests where the GT 545 comes out ahead. Therefore, in terms of pure compute performance as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the 825M is the superior part. This win is not a landslide, but it is definitive.

The 825M’s advantage in this test can be attributed to its architectural strengths, which will be detailed in the next section. The GT 545, despite having a larger memory bus and more memory, does not translate that into a compute win. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, the 825M is the better choice.

The GT 545 does not have a single benchmark win to its name in this comparison. Its strengths lie in other areas, such as its higher memory capacity and wider bus, which are specification differences that do not appear to impact the Geekbench OpenCL score. For any workload that relies on the specific compute capabilities measured by this test, the 825M is the definitive pick.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip based on the Kepler 2.0 architecture, while the GT 545 uses the GF116 chip based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture. This generational leap is significant. The 825M is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the GT 545 uses a larger 40 nm process, also from TSMC. This process shrink allows the 825M to pack 1,020 million transistors into a die size of just 87 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 11.7M / mm². In contrast, the GT 545 has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, giving it a far lower density of just 4.9M / mm².

The core configurations are starkly different. The 825M features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The GT 545, despite having fewer total transistors, has only 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the 825M has 2.67 times the shading units and 1.33 times the TMUs, but half the ROPs. This configuration suggests the 825M is designed for heavy parallel compute workloads, while the GT 545’s higher ROP count is geared towards pixel fill-rate tasks.

These architectural differences manifest in the calculated performance rates. The 825M achieves a pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s, while the GT 545 achieves 4.320 GPixel/s and 17.28 GTexel/s respectively. The 825M is significantly faster in both metrics. In terms of raw floating-point performance, the 825M delivers 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the GT 545's 414.7 GFLOPS. This is a 74% advantage for the 825M, which explains its superior OpenCL benchmark score. The memory subsystems also differ, with the 825M using a 64-bit bus and the GT 545 a 192-bit bus, but the 825M's higher clock speeds on its DDR3 memory partially compensate for the narrower interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694, which is 2.8% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545's score of 3594.

Q: Are these two GPUs from the same architectural generation?

A: No. The 825M is based on the Kepler 2.0 architecture (chip GK208), while the GT 545 is based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture (chip GF116).

Q: How does the 825M's performance compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 825M's average score of 3694 is 0.6% behind the GeForce GT 740M (3717) and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The GT 545 has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 38.40 GB/s due to its 192-bit bus, while the 825M has a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the GT 545 have any advantages in terms of raw specifications?

A: Yes. The GT 545 has a larger memory capacity of 1536 MB (versus 1024 MB), a wider 192-bit memory bus, and double the ROPs (16 versus 8) of the 825M.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The 825M is built on a 28 nm process, while the GT 545 is built on a larger 40 nm process, both from TSMC.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 in the only available test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. With a 2.8% lead in score and a 74% advantage in FP32 floating-point performance (722.7 GFLOPS vs 414.7 GFLOPS), the 825M is the superior compute part. Its Kepler architecture, with over twice the shading units, is clearly more efficient at processing the parallel workloads that this benchmark measures.

The GT 545, despite having a wider 192-bit memory bus, more memory (1536 MB vs 1024 MB), and double the ROPs, cannot overcome the architectural deficit. Its Fermi design, while competent for its era, is outclassed by the newer Kepler design in compute tasks. The GT 545's higher pixel rate is its only theoretical advantage, but this does not manifest in the Geekbench score.

For a user looking for a GPU to handle OpenCL compute workloads, the data strongly favors the NVIDIA GeForce 825M. Its higher score and significantly higher GFLOPS rating make it the logical choice. The GT 545's strengths in memory capacity and ROP count are not reflected in the benchmark results, suggesting those features are not beneficial for the tested workload. Based strictly on the data, the 825M is the better-performing GPU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 825M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 87 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.7M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 384 | 144 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.528 GPixel/s | 4.320 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.11 GTexel/s | 17.28 GTexel/s |

| FP32 (FLOPs) | 722.7 GFLOPS | 414.7 GFLOPS |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 38.40 GB/s |

| TDP | 33 W | 70 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Release Date | 2014-01-26 | 2011-05-13 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 149 USD |