NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a decisive result. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 manages 3594. That is a 37.3% advantage for the GT 755M, a gap that separates these two mobile and desktop parts by a clear performance tier. The GT 755M does not just edge ahead; it wins this workload by a margin that would be visible in any compute-oriented task, from OpenCL acceleration to general GPU compute.

The GT 545, by contrast, posts a score that places it in a different competitive neighborhood. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation at 3596, a delta of -0.1%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M at 3616, a delta of -0.6%. The GT 545 is essentially within a rounding error of those two parts, which suggests that its compute performance is representative of a baseline tier, not a high-water mark. The GTX 1050 sits at 3629, only 1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 is 1.5% ahead. The GT 545 holds its own against these older and entry-level parts, but it cannot reach the level of the GT 755M.

The GT 755M, meanwhile, sits in a slightly more crowded field. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4150 at 4013, a delta of just 0.5%, meaning the GT 755M is effectively tied with that professional mobile GPU. The Intel HD Graphics 630 at 4075 is 1% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 is 1.5% ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 trails by 1.4% at 3977. So while the GT 755M wins the head-to-head against the GT 545, it is not at the top of its own peer group; it is a mid-pack performer among integrated and older discrete parts. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the GT 755M is roughly one full step above the GT 545, but both are far from the top of the overall GPU rankings.

The percentile data reinforces this. The GT 755M sits at the 24th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GT 545 sits at the 21st percentile. That three-percentile gap may sound small, but it represents the difference between a part that can handle modest compute workloads and one that struggles with the same tasks. The average benchmark score for the GT 755M is 4033, while the GT 545 averages 3594. The GT 755M also has a second recorded benchmark, a Geekbench Metal score of 3132, which the GT 545 lacks entirely. This means the GT 755M can be evaluated on Apple's Metal API, while the GT 545 has no such data point, a sign that the newer part is more versatile across different compute frameworks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4934, compared to the GT 545's 3594, a 37.3% advantage.

Q: How does the GT 755M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GT 755M is 0.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4150, 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2, and trails the Intel HD Graphics 630 by 1% and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB by 1.5%.

Q: Is the GT 545 competitive with any modern GPUs?

A: Yes, the GT 545 is within 1.5% of several parts, including the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, the GeForce GT 735M, the GeForce GTX 1050, and the AMD Radeon HD 6770, with deltas ranging from -0.1% to -1.5%.

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

A: The GT 755M has an average benchmark score of 4033, while the GT 545 has an average of 3594.

Q: Does the GT 755M support additional compute APIs beyond OpenCL?

A: Yes, the database records a Geekbench Metal score of 3132 for the GT 755M. The GT 545 has no Metal benchmark recorded.

Q: Where do these GPUs rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The GT 755M sits at the 24th percentile, while the GT 545 sits at the 21st percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 755M wins the only direct comparison, and it wins convincingly. The 37.3% delta in OpenCL performance means that any workload leveraging general-purpose compute, such as video encoding, physics simulation, or data-parallel tasks, will run noticeably faster on the GT 755M. Its additional Metal benchmark also indicates that it can be used in environments where Apple's compute API is the primary interface, something the GT 545 cannot claim. For users who need a mobile GPU with a broader software ecosystem and higher raw throughput, the GT 755M is the clear choice.

The GT 545, on the other hand, does not win any benchmarks in the database, but it does have one advantage: it is a desktop card with a fixed set of display outputs. It offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA, which makes it a straightforward drop-in for older desktop systems that rely on those legacy connectors. The GT 755M, being a mobile MXM module, has display outputs that are "portable device dependent," meaning its connectivity is determined by the laptop manufacturer, not the GPU itself. For someone building or upgrading a desktop with a legacy monitor or a VGA-only setup, the GT 545 is the more practical option despite its lower performance.

The use-case split is also a matter of form factor. The GT 545 is a single-slot card with a 145 mm (5.7 inches) length, designed to fit into a standard desktop chassis. It draws 70 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, which is modest by modern standards but still more than the GT 755M's 50 W TDP. The GT 755M is an MXM module, which means it is not user-upgradeable in most laptops and is intended for original equipment manufacturers. So the GT 545 wins on compatibility with existing desktop hardware, while the GT 755M wins on raw performance and energy efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The GT 755M uses a 28 nm process node, while the GT 545 uses a 40 nm node. The GT 755M packs 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The GT 545 has 1,170 million transistors on a much larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 4.9 million per square millimeter. The newer manufacturing process allows the GT 755M to fit more transistors into a smaller area, which is a primary reason for its performance advantage.

The memory subsystems are also very different. The GT 755M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 545 has 1536 MB of DDR3 memory on a 192-bit bus, but only reaches 38.40 GB/s. Despite having a narrower bus, the GDDR5 memory on the GT 755M more than doubles the bandwidth, which is critical for compute-heavy workloads. The memory clock also reflects this: the GT 755M runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while the GT 545 runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective).

The compute resources differ as well. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GT 545 has 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GT 755M thus has more than double the shading units and a higher texture unit count, which directly translates into its higher pixel rate (8.160 GPixel/s vs 4.320 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.64 GTexel/s vs 17.28 GTexel/s). The floating-point performance tells the same story: the GT 755M delivers 783.4 GFLOPS, while the GT 545 delivers 414.7 GFLOPS.

The bus interface also differs. The GT 755M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GT 545 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The power profile is reversed: the GT 755M has a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, while the GT 545 has a 70 W TDP and no power connectors, but does suggest a 250 W PSU. The GT 545 is a single-slot card, while the GT 755M is an MXM module. The GT 545 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, though this is not a factor in performance analysis.

Architecture Differences

The GT 755M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK107 chip. Kepler was NVIDIA's architecture designed to improve performance-per-watt over the previous Fermi generation, and the data supports that goal. The GT 755M achieves its higher benchmark scores while consuming 50 W, which is 20 W less than the GT 545's 70 W TDP. The 28 nm manufacturing process, done by TSMC, enables this efficiency gain.

The GT 545 is based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, using the GF116 chip. Fermi was NVIDIA's first architecture to support compute capabilities like error-correcting code and improved double-precision floating point, but it was also known for higher power consumption and heat output. The 40 nm process node, also from TSMC, is significantly older and less dense. The GT 545's larger die size of 238 mm², despite having fewer transistors, is a direct consequence of the older process technology.

The API support also differs. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GT 755M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 545 has no Vulkan support recorded in the database. This is a meaningful difference for modern applications that rely on Vulkan for cross-platform graphics and compute. The GT 755M is therefore more future-proof in terms of API compatibility.

The release timeline reflects the architectural gap. The GT 545 was released on 2011-05-13, while the GT 755M came later on 2013-06-24. The GT 545 belongs to the GeForce 500 generation, with its predecessor being GeForce 400 and its successor being GeForce 600. The GT 755M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, with its predecessor being GeForce 600M and its successor being GeForce 800M. Both are end-of-life products, but the GT 755M is the newer design by more than two years.

The GT 755M also has a higher transistor density (10.8M per mm²) compared to the GT 545 (4.9M per mm²), which is a direct result of the 28 nm node. This density advantage allows for more compute units in a smaller physical footprint, which is why the GT 755M can deliver 384 shading units in a 118 mm² die, while the GT 545 can only fit 144 shading units in a 238 mm² die.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: pick the GT 755M if raw compute performance is the priority. It wins the only direct benchmark by 37.3%, has a higher average benchmark score (4033 vs 3594), supports Vulkan and Metal, and does so while consuming 20 W less power. It is a newer architecture (Kepler vs Fermi 2.0), uses a more advanced 28 nm process, and offers more than double the shading units and memory bandwidth. For any workload that stresses the GPU, from OpenCL compute to modern API compatibility, the GT 755M is the superior choice.

Pick the GT 545 if the use case is a legacy desktop system with specific connectivity needs. It offers fixed display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.3a, VGA), comes as a standard single-slot card with a 145 mm length, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. It is a simpler drop-in solution for older hardware, and its performance, while lower, is still within a competitive range of several other mid-range GPUs from its era. The GT 545 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 149 USD, which may be of historical interest, but the performance gap to the GT 755M is too large to ignore for any compute-heavy task.

The percentile ranking (24th vs 21st) underscores that both GPUs are below average in the broader GPU landscape, but the GT 755M is meaningfully closer to the middle of the pack. It is not a high-end part by any measure, but it is a competent mobile solution for its time. The GT 545, meanwhile, is a product of an older generation, showing its age in both architecture and measured performance. For anyone choosing between these two today, the GT 755M is the one the data favors.