GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 and the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX are both end-of-life graphics processors from NVIDIA, but they represent different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the 920MX taking the lead in the single available benchmark, though the GT 545 holds its own in specific architectural aspects. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications for each card based strictly on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX scores 4068 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594 points. This gives the 920MX a decisive win with a deltaPct of -11.7%, meaning the GT 545 trails by 11.7 percent in this workload. The margin is substantial and indicates that the 920MX offers significantly better raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GT 545’s average benchmark score is 3594, which places it at the 21st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (avg score 3596, deltaPct -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (avg score 3616, deltaPct -0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (avg score 3629, deltaPct -1%), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (avg score 3649, deltaPct -1.5%). This means the GT 545 sits just barely behind a modern workstation-class mobile GPU and a mainstream desktop gaming card, with deltas of only 0.1 to 1.5 percent. The performance gap to these competitors is minimal, making the GT 545 competitive with much newer hardware in compute tasks.

The 920MX, conversely, has an average benchmark score of 3528, despite its higher OpenCL score of 4068. This discrepancy is because the 920MX also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2987, which drags down its average. Its nearest rivals include the GT 545 (avg score 3594, deltaPct -1.8%), the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (avg score 3596, deltaPct -1.9%), the GT 735M (avg score 3616, deltaPct -2.4%), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (avg score 3434, deltaPct 2.7%). Notably, the 920MX is slightly ahead of the Quadro 2000M by 2.7 percent, but it trails the GT 545 and others by roughly 2 percent in average score. This suggests that while the 920MX wins the OpenCL test outright, its Vulkan performance is weaker, pulling its overall average down.

The head-to-head data also shows that the 920MX wins the only benchmark where both cards are tested. However, the GT 545’s average score of 3594 is actually higher than the 920MX’s average of 3528. This is a critical nuance: the 920MX excels in OpenCL but underperforms in Vulkan, while the GT 545 has a single benchmark result that is more consistent. For users relying primarily on OpenCL workloads, the 920MX is clearly superior; for Vulkan-centric tasks, the GT 545 might be more reliable, though no direct Vulkan score exists for the GT 545.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GT 545 uses the GF116 chip based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The 920MX uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, also built by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The process node shrink from 40 nm to 28 nm is significant, allowing for higher transistor density. The GT 545 packs 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². The 920MX, with 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieves a density of 13.2 million per mm², nearly three times higher. This denser integration is a hallmark of newer process technology.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The GT 545 features 1536 MB of DDR3 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 38.40 GB/s. The 920MX has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 545’s wider bus gives it a 2.67 times bandwidth advantage, which can be critical for texture-heavy workloads. However, the 920MX has more total memory capacity, which helps with larger datasets. The memory clocks also differ: the GT 545 runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), while the 920MX runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the narrower bus negates the higher clock speed.

Compute resources are where the 920MX pulls ahead. The GT 545 has 144 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The 920MX has 256 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The 920MX has 78 percent more shading units, which explains its higher compute throughput, but it has half the ROPs, which may limit fill-rate-bound scenarios. The pixel rate for the GT 545 is 4.320 GPixel/s, while the 920MX achieves 7.944 GPixel/s, a 84 percent advantage. The texture rate is 17.28 GTexel/s for the GT 545 versus 23.83 GTexel/s for the 920MX, a 38 percent lead for the newer card. Floating-point performance (FP32) is 414.7 GFLOPS for the GT 545 and 508.4 GFLOPS for the 920MX, a 22.6 percent advantage for the 920MX.

Power and interface details also diverge. The GT 545 has a TDP of 70 W and requires a 250 W power supply, while the 920MX has a TDP of just 16 W, making it far more efficient for mobile applications. The GT 545 is a single-slot card with PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the 920MX is an MXM module with PCIe 3.0 x8. The GT 545 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA outputs, whereas the 920MX’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented design. API support is similar for DirectX (12 (11_0)) and OpenGL (4.6) on both, but the 920MX adds Vulkan 1.4 support, which the GT 545 lacks entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX scores 4068 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594, giving the 920MX an 11.7 percent lead in this test.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The GT 545 offers 38.40 GB/s of bandwidth due to its 192-bit bus, while the 920MX provides 14.40 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. The GT 545 has more than 2.5 times the bandwidth despite a lower memory clock.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The GT 545 has a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm² on a 238 mm² die, while the 920MX has 13.2 million per mm² on a 77 mm² die, reflecting the 28 nm process advantage.

Q: Does the 920MX support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the GT 545 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The GT 545 has an average benchmark score of 3594, while the 920MX averages 3528. Despite the 920MX winning the OpenCL test, its Vulkan score of 2987 lowers its average below the GT 545’s.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The 920MX achieves a pixel rate of 7.944 GPixel/s, compared to 4.320 GPixel/s for the GT 545, making the 920MX 84 percent faster in this metric.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The GT 545 uses the GF116 chip on a 40 nm process with a 238 mm² die size, while the 920MX uses the GM108S chip on a 28 nm process with a 77 mm² die. Transistor counts are 1,170 million for the GT 545 versus 1,020 million for the 920MX. The GT 545 has no base or boost clock listed, while the 920MX has a base clock of 965 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz. Memory size is 1536 MB for the GT 545 versus 2 GB for the 920MX, with bus widths of 192-bit and 64-bit, respectively. Bandwidth is 38.40 GB/s for the GT 545 and 14.40 GB/s for the 920MX. Shading units are 144 for the GT 545 and 256 for the 920MX; both have 24 TMUs, but ROPs are 16 versus 8. Pixel rates are 4.320 GPixel/s versus 7.944 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 17.28 GTexel/s versus 23.83 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 414.7 GFLOPS versus 508.4 GFLOPS. TDP is 70 W versus 16 W, and the bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. The GT 545 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the 920MX has no listed launch MSRP. The GT 545 has fixed display outputs (DVI, HDMI, VGA), while the 920MX is portable-device dependent. The GT 545 has no Vulkan support, while the 920MX supports Vulkan 1.4. The GT 545 was released in 2011, and the 920MX in 2016.

The Verdict

The data indicates a split decision. The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX is the clear winner in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 11.7 percent lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its 256 shading units, higher pixel and texture rates, and superior FP32 throughput make it the better choice for general-purpose compute and shader-heavy applications. The 920MX also offers Vulkan support, which the GT 545 lacks, and operates at a fraction of the power draw (16 W versus 70 W), making it ideal for thin-and-light laptops.

However, the GT 545 has its own strengths. Its 192-bit memory bus provides 38.40 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than double the 920MX’s 14.40 GB/s. This advantage is crucial for memory-bound tasks like high-resolution texture streaming or large framebuffer operations. The GT 545 also has 16 ROPs versus the 920MX’s 8, which could benefit certain rasterization workloads. Its average benchmark score of 3594 is higher than the 920MX’s 3528, suggesting more consistent performance across mixed workloads. The GT 545’s launch MSRP was 149 USD, though pricing should not be considered in a vacuum. For users who prioritize compute density and modern API support, the 920MX is the better pick; for those who need memory bandwidth and wider bus connectivity, the GT 545 holds an edge.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce 920MX wins in:

• OpenCL compute performance (4068 vs 3594, 11.7 percent faster)
• Shading unit count (256 vs 144)
• Pixel fill rate (7.944 GPixel/s vs 4.320 GPixel/s)
• Texture fill rate (23.83 GTexel/s vs 17.28 GTexel/s)
• FP32 throughput (508.4 GFLOPS vs 414.7 GFLOPS)
• Vulkan API support (1.4 vs none)
• Power efficiency (16 W TDP vs 70 W TDP)
• Memory capacity (2 GB vs 1536 MB)

NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 wins in:

• Memory bandwidth (38.40 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s)
• Memory bus width (192-bit vs 64-bit)
• ROP count (16 vs 8)
• Average benchmark score (3594 vs 3528)
• Display output flexibility (DVI, HDMI, VGA vs portable-dependent)
• Lower transistor count density requirement (238 mm² die vs 77 mm², though this is not a performance win)

The bottom line is that the 920MX is the superior compute card for modern workloads, while the GT 545 offers specific advantages in memory bandwidth and raster operations that may matter in legacy or bandwidth-sensitive applications. Both are end-of-life products, but the data clearly shows the 920MX as the more capable all-around GPU for contemporary tasks.