NVIDIA GeForce 945M vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data separates these two NVIDIA workstation and mobile GPUs into very different roles. The GeForce 945M takes the single recorded OpenCL benchmark outright, scoring 8099 against the Quadro 5000's 7289, a margin of 11.1 percent. That makes the 945M the clear winner in raw compute throughput as measured by the database's Geekbench OpenCL test. It also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 42nd percentile versus the Quadro 5000's 40th, meaning the mobile part lands closer to the middle of the overall performance distribution.

The Quadro 5000, despite losing the head-to-head, still has its own domain where it wins: memory bandwidth and capacity. The data shows 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth on a 320 bit bus with 2.5 GB of GDDR5, compared to the 945M's 28.80 GB/s on a 128 bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3. For workloads that stream large datasets, the Quadro's memory subsystem is in a different class. The 945M's compute lead does not erase that advantage; it simply means the two cards are optimized for different pressures. The 945M wins where shader throughput and clock speed matter, while the Quadro 5000 wins where data movement dominates.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The 945M's closest competitors are the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080, delta 0.2 percent), AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129, delta -0.4 percent), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8067, delta 0.4 percent), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135, delta -0.4 percent). These are all mainstream or midrange parts with similar compute profiles. The Quadro 5000, by contrast, sits near the GeForce GTX 750 (7222, delta 0.9 percent), AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, delta 1.2 percent), GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, delta 1.6 percent), and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170, delta 1.7 percent). That cluster is lower in absolute score, and the Quadro's relative position within it is tighter, with deltas under 2 percent. The 945M's rival cluster is also tight, but the absolute scores are roughly 800 points higher.

In practical terms, the 945M is the part for compute-bound tasks on a laptop or MXM module. The Quadro 5000 is the part for memory-heavy workstation tasks on a desktop, despite its slower shader array. Neither part is current; both are marked end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The GeForce 945M uses the GM107 chip, which is based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the older Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. That chip has 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, with a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The node shrink and architecture change explain a large part of the 945M's efficiency and compute advantage.

The shading resources differ sharply. The 945M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. So the 945M has nearly double the shader count, while the Quadro has more TMUs and more than double the ROP count. That combination gives the Quadro a higher pixel throughput relative to its compute, though the raw rates still favor the 945M: the 945M achieves 16.32 GPixel/s and 40.80 GTexel/s, versus the Quadro's 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s. The floating point performance follows the shader count: the 945M delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS of FP32, while the Quadro manages 722.3 GFLOPS.

Memory technology is another major divide. The 945M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus, with memory clocked at 900 MHz and an effective rate of 1800 Mbps, for a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320 bit bus, with memory at 750 MHz and an effective rate of 3 Gbps, for a bandwidth of 120.0 GB/s. The Quadro's bus width is 2.5 times wider, and its GDDR5 memory is much faster in aggregate. This is the single largest architectural difference that favors the older card.

Clock behavior also differs. The 945M has a base clock of 928 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz. The Quadro 5000 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only its memory clock. That suggests the Quadro runs at fixed clocks, or the database simply did not record them. The 945M's boost capability is part of why it wins the compute benchmark.

Other differences include the bus interface and physical format. The 945M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors, drawing a TDP of 75 W. The Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card, 248 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. Its TDP is 152 W, double the 945M's. The 945M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 945M supports Vulkan 1.4; the Quadro does not list Vulkan support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head OpenCL benchmark between these two parts. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 945M scores 8099, while the Quadro 5000 scores 7289. The 945M wins with a delta of 11.1 percent. That is a decisive margin, roughly a tenth faster in raw compute. The 945M's nearest rival, the GRID K2, scores 8080, only 19 points behind, so the 945M's lead over the Quadro is far larger than its lead over its own closest competitor. Conversely, the Quadro 5000's nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 750, scores 7222, just 67 points behind, meaning the Quadro's gap to the 945M is much bigger than its gap to the card below it.

The 11.1 percent delta is consistent with the architectural differences. The 945M's FP32 throughput (1,305.6 GFLOPS) is 80 percent higher than the Quadro's (722.3 GFLOPS), but the OpenCL score gap is smaller, likely because memory bandwidth limits the 945M in certain sub-tests. The Quadro's 120.0 GB/s bandwidth is over four times the 945M's 28.80 GB/s, so in memory-heavy OpenCL kernels the Quadro can close some of the gap. Still, the compute advantage wins out.

The win count is 1-0 in favor of the 945M. There are no other benchmark entries in the database for either card. The 945M's average benchmark score is 8099, and the Quadro's is 7289. The percentile ranks, 42 and 40, respectively, place both cards in the lower half of all GPUs, but the 945M is clearly ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 945M wins the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 8099, beating the NVIDIA Quadro 5000's 7289 by 11.1 percent.

Q: Why does the Quadro 5000 have lower compute but higher bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320 bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s, while the 945M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus at 28.80 GB/s. The 945M compensates with more shading units (640 vs. 352) and higher FP32 throughput (1,305.6 GFLOPS vs. 722.3 GFLOPS).

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The 945M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080, 0.2 percent), AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129, -0.4 percent), GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8067, 0.4 percent), and GeForce GTX 950M (8135, -0.4 percent). The Quadro 5000's nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 750 (7222, 0.9 percent), Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, 1.2 percent), GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, 1.6 percent), and Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170, 1.7 percent).

Q: Which card has better pixel and texture throughput?

A: The 945M leads in both: 16.32 GPixel/s and 40.80 GTexel/s versus the Quadro 5000's 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 945M additionally supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan entry.

Q: What are the physical and power differences?

A: The 945M is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors. The Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card, 248 mm long, with a 152 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce 945M | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 |

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

| Chip | GM107 | GF100 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | Quadro Fermi (x000) |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |

| Die size | 148 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.6M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 928 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost clock | 1020 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 750 MHz, 3 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 2.5 GB |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 640 | 352 |

| TMUs | 40 | 44 |

| ROPs | 16 | 40 |

| Pixel rate | 16.32 GPixel/s | 11.29 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 40.80 GTexel/s | 22.57 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,305.6 GFLOPS | 722.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 152 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 450 W |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | Not listed |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 248 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release date | 2015-10-26 | 2011-02-22 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 2,499 USD |