GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 are both end-of-life Fermi-based graphics cards, but benchmark data shows they occupy different performance tiers. In the single available head-to-head benchmark, the Quadro 2000D decisively outperforms the GT 545, making it the stronger option for compute-heavy workloads, while the GT 545 offers a more flexible feature set for general desktop use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the GeForce GT 545 scores 3594. This gives the Quadro 2000D a 9.3% lead over the GT 545. This is a substantial margin in a synthetic compute benchmark, indicating that the Quadro 2000D is the more capable card for general-purpose GPU computing tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective nearest rivals clarifies the competitive landscape. The Quadro 2000D’s score of 3930 places it just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919) and only 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953). This suggests the Quadro 2000D is positioned in a tight cluster of similarly performing GPUs, with its closest competitors being a mix of professional and mobile parts. In contrast, the GeForce GT 545’s score of 3594 is a mere 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596) and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629). This places the GT 545 in a lower performance tier than the Quadro 2000D, even when compared to a modern mobile workstation GPU.

The percentile rankings reinforce this gap. The Quadro 2000D sits in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce GT 545 sits in the 21st percentile. Although the difference is just two percentile points, it confirms that the Quadro 2000D is the stronger performer in the aggregate benchmark universe. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the Quadro 2000D wins the only head-to-head test, and its score positions it closer to more modern parts than the GT 545’s score does. The Quadro 2000D’s 9.3% advantage in OpenCL is the defining metric of this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, which is 9.3% higher than the GeForce GT 545’s score of 3594.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000D compare to its closest rival, the Quadro K2000D?

A: The Quadro 2000D is marginally faster, scoring 3930 versus 3919 for the K2000D, a difference of just 0.3%.

Q: Is the GeForce GT 545 competitive with its nearest rivals?

A: Yes, it is closely matched. The GT 545’s score of 3594 is only 0.1% ahead of the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596) and 1% behind the GeForce GTX 1050 (3629).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce GT 545 has 1536 MB of DDR3 memory on a 192-bit bus with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: Both cards are built on the same 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, resulting in an identical transistor density of 4.9M / mm².

Q: What is the difference in pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Quadro 2000D has a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s. The GeForce GT 545 has a lower pixel rate of 4.320 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.28 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

While both cards are built on the Fermi architecture, there are key architectural distinctions. The Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip and is classified under the "Quadro Fermi (x000)" generation, while the GT 545 uses the GF116 chip and belongs to the "GeForce 500" generation. This generational split is significant, as the GT 545 is based on "Fermi 2.0," a revision of the original Fermi architecture found in the Quadro 2000D.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro 2000D packs 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. The GT 545 has fewer resources, with 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. This means the Quadro 2000D has 33% more shading units and TMUs than the GT 545, which directly translates into higher theoretical compute performance. The data confirms this: the Quadro 2000D delivers 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 20.00 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, while the GT 545 delivers 414.7 GFLOPS and 17.28 GTexel/s, respectively.

Both cards share the same 40 nm process node, manufactured by TSMC, with an identical 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die. This results in the same 4.9M / mm² transistor density. The memory subsystems also differ in type and configuration, with the Quadro using GDDR5 and the GT using DDR3, although the GT has a wider 192-bit bus versus the Quadro’s 128-bit bus. Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as indicated by the null values for those fields.

Specification Differences

The most telling specification difference is the FP32 performance: the Quadro 2000D achieves 480.0 GFLOPS, which is 15.7% higher than the GT 545’s 414.7 GFLOPS. This is the core computational advantage. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate at 5.000 GPixel/s versus 4.320 GPixel/s for the GT 545.

Memory configuration is another major divergence. The Quadro 2000D uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 545 uses 1536 MB of DDR3 memory with a 192-bit bus, yielding 38.40 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the GT 545 having 50% more memory capacity and a wider bus, the slower DDR3 memory means it has lower bandwidth than the GDDR5-equipped Quadro. The memory clocks also differ: the Quadro runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the GT 545 runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective).

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, while the GT 545 has a higher TDP of 70 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro is longer at 178 mm (7 inches) and has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the GT 545 is shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) with no listed height. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro offers 2x DVI, while the GT 545 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA. The launch MSRP for the Quadro 2000D was 599 USD, while the GT 545 launched at 149 USD.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is the superior performer. It wins the only head-to-head test with a 9.3% advantage in OpenCL score (3930 vs 3594), and its higher-tier specifications, more shading units, higher FP32 throughput, and faster GDDR5 memory, back up that result. The Quadro 2000D also has a lower TDP (62 W versus 70 W), making it more power-efficient despite its performance lead. For any workload that leverages OpenCL compute, the Quadro 2000D is the definitive choice.

However, the GeForce GT 545 is not without merit. It offers more memory capacity (1536 MB versus 1024 MB), which can be beneficial for certain workloads that require larger framebuffers, and its wider 192-bit memory bus, despite slower DDR3 memory, provides a different balance of characteristics. The GT 545 also has more versatile display outputs, including HDMI and VGA, which the Quadro lacks. Its 145 mm length makes it easier to fit in smaller cases.

The verdict is stratified by use case. For professional compute and performance-critical tasks, the Quadro 2000D wins outright. Its higher scores and superior compute metrics make it the more capable GPU. The GT 545 is a viable alternative only when memory capacity and display connectivity are prioritized over raw performance, and even then, the performance gap is significant. The data does not support the GT 545 as a performance equal; it is a lower-performing part with different strengths.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro 2000D: This card wins in every compute-centric category. It has a decisive 9.3% lead in OpenCL benchmarks. Its FP32 performance of 480.0 GFLOPS is 15.7% higher than the GT 545’s 414.7 GFLOPS. It also wins on texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s versus 4.320 GPixel/s). The Quadro’s GDDR5 memory provides higher bandwidth (41.60 GB/s) despite a narrower bus, and it does all this with a lower TDP of 62 W. This card is the clear winner for GPU-accelerated compute, rendering, and any task that demands maximum throughput.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 545: The GT 545 wins on memory capacity, offering 1536 MB versus the Quadro’s 1024 MB. This larger framebuffer could be advantageous for applications that use more video memory. It also offers a wider 192-bit memory bus, which, combined with DDR3 memory, is a different architectural trade-off. The GT 545 is the winner in terms of display connectivity, providing three outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.3a, and VGA) compared to the Quadro’s two DVI ports. Its shorter length (145 mm versus 178 mm) makes it a better fit for space-constrained builds. While it loses on raw performance, it wins on flexibility and compatibility.