NVIDIA GeForce 945M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 as the clear performance leader between these two end-of-life mobile and workstation graphics solutions. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 against 8,099 for the GeForce 945M, a 41% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; it is a decisive margin that defines the entire comparison.

The Quadro K5000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation and was released in August 2012, while the GeForce 945M is a GeForce 900M part from October 2015. Despite being three years older, the professional card carries substantially more hardware. The K5000 has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the 945M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro also has twice the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, and a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, yielding a bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s compared to just 28.80 GB/s for the GeForce. That bandwidth difference, 6x in favor of the K5000, is the single most striking specification gap and explains much of the compute performance disparity.

The 945M does have higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 928 MHz with a boost of 1020 MHz, while the K5000 runs at a flat 706 MHz. The GeForce also uses the newer Maxwell architecture, whereas the Quadro is built on Kepler, and it supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to Vulkan 1.2.175 on the K5000. Yet these advantages do not overcome the K5000's massive hardware lead. The Quadro's pixel rate is 22.59 GPixel/s versus 16.32 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 90.37 GTexel/s versus 40.80 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.169 TFLOPS against 1,305.6 GFLOPS.

Who should pick which? The data suggests that users needing maximum raw compute performance, large memory capacity, and high memory bandwidth should choose the Quadro K5000. The 945M is a lower-power, smaller-footprint mobile module with a 75 W TDP versus 122 W, no external power connector, and portable-device-dependent display outputs, making it suited to thin-and-light laptop integration where the K5000's dual-slot, 267 mm long, 111 mm tall professional card form factor is impossible. However, the GeForce 945M does not win a single head-to-head benchmark in the database. The verdict is simple: the K5000 wins on every measured performance metric, and the 945M only wins on power efficiency and physical adaptability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 11,418 versus 8,099 for the GeForce 945M, a 41% higher score.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth from its 4 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The GeForce 945M has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the GeForce 945M have any architectural advantage?

A: Yes. It uses the newer Maxwell architecture (GM107 chip) versus Kepler (GK104) on the Quadro. It also supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to Vulkan 1.2.175 on the K5000, and both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements of each?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a 122 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU in desktop systems. The GeForce 945M has a 75 W TDP, needs no power connector, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU sits higher in the overall database percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro K5000 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 945M sits at the 42nd percentile.

Q: Are both still in production?

A: No. Both carry an end-of-life production status in the database.

Q: What is the launch price of the K5000?

A: The launch MSRP of the Quadro K5000 is 2,499 USD. No launch MSRP is recorded for the GeForce 945M.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different NVIDIA design eras. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die is large at 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GeForce 945M uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, also TSMC 28 nm, but the die is 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors, a density of 12.6M per mm². So while the Maxwell chip is denser per square millimeter, the Kepler chip has nearly twice the transistor count and nearly double the die area.

The execution resources diverge sharply. The K5000 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 945M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is 2.4x the shading units, 3.2x the TMUs, and 2x the ROPs on the professional card. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so the comparison rests entirely on traditional raster and compute hardware.

Memory architecture is equally different. The K5000 pairs 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), producing 172.8 GB/s. The 945M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), producing a much lower 28.80 GB/s. The GDDR5 versus DDR3 choice alone explains a large part of the bandwidth gulf.

API support differs in Vulkan. The K5000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 945M lists Vulkan 1.4. Both have DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The physical form factors are also fundamentally different: the K5000 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm by 111 mm, while the 945M is an MXM Module using an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface with dimensions not recorded.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every specification field. Process node is the same, 28 nm from TSMC, but transistor count is 3,540 million on the K5000 versus 1,870 million on the 945M. Die size is 294 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is 12.0M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clocks differ in the GeForce's favor. The K5000 runs at 706 MHz base and boost, while the 945M runs at 928 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. Memory clock is 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) on the Quadro versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the GeForce.

Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB. Type is GDDR5 versus DDR3. Bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s.

Compute resources favor the Quadro: 1,536 shading units versus 640, 128 TMUs versus 40, 32 ROPs versus 16. Pixel rate is 22.59 GPixel/s versus 16.32 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 90.37 GTexel/s versus 40.80 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.169 TFLOPS versus 1,305.6 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs also differ. The K5000 has a 122 W TDP, dual-slot width, one 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU. The 945M has a 75 W TDP, MXM module form factor, no power connector, and no suggested PSU. The K5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16; the 945M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 on the Quadro versus portable-device-dependent on the GeForce. The K5000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high; the 945M has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are August 2012 and October 2015. The K5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD; the 945M has none recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark in the database runs on both GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro K5000 scores 11,418, and the GeForce 945M scores 8,099. The delta is 41% in favor of the Quadro. This is a lopsided result. The K5000 also has higher average benchmark scores overall: 9,637 versus 8,099, though that average includes multiple tests for the Quadro and only OpenCL for the GeForce.

In the overall percentile ranking, the K5000 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs. The 945M sits at the 42nd percentile. The K5000's nearest rivals in the database are the GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645 (-0.1%), the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (-0.2%), the Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (-0.3%), and the Tesla C2070 at 9,716 (-0.8%). The 945M's nearest rivals are the GRID K2 at 8,080 (+0.2%), the Radeon R9 M360 at 8,129 (-0.4%), the GTX 650 Ti Boost at 8,067 (+0.4%), and the GTX 950M at 8,135 (-0.4%). The K5000 clusters with a much higher-performing peer group, while the 945M clusters with lower-tier parts.

The 945M does not win a single head-to-head test. The win count is 1 for the K5000 and 0 for the 945M. The larger hardware configuration of the K5000, especially the 6x bandwidth advantage, translates directly into the benchmark outcome.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5000 wins everywhere performance is measured. It wins the only direct benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 41%. It has higher pixel throughput, 22.59 GPixel/s versus 16.32 GPixel/s. It has higher texture throughput, 90.37 GTexel/s versus 40.80 GTexel/s. It has higher FP32 compute, 2.169 TFLOPS versus 1,305.6 GFLOPS. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 versus 2 GB of DDR3, and a memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. For any workload that stresses memory bandwidth, large data sets, or raw shading throughput, the data points squarely at the K5000.

The GeForce 945M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 75 W TDP is substantially lower than the K5000's 122 W. It requires no power connector, while the K5000 needs a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. It is an MXM module, which makes it appropriate for portable devices, while the K5000 is a dual-slot desktop card. Its display outputs are portable-device dependent, meaning it is designed for laptop panels rather than external workstation monitors. The 945M also has a higher boost clock at 1020 MHz versus 706 MHz, and it supports the newer Vulkan 1.4 API. But none of these advantages convert into a benchmark win. The 945M is the appropriate choice only when power draw and physical footprint matter more than compute performance, and when the user does not need the K5000's large memory pool or high bandwidth. For everything else, the Quadro K5000 is the superior part in the recorded data.