NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000M are both end-of-life mobile and desktop graphics solutions from NVIDIA, built on the Fermi architecture. Benchmark data shows the GT 545 holds a narrow lead in raw compute performance, but the two cards are closely matched overall, with each offering distinct advantages in memory capacity, bandwidth, and form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of workloads. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. This gives the GT 545 a 4.7% advantage, making it the clear winner in this single head-to-head matchup. The delta is modest — roughly 160 points — but it is consistent across the test suite, suggesting the GT 545’s higher shading-unit count and wider memory bus translate into a tangible, if not dramatic, performance edge.

When placed in the context of the broader GPU landscape, both cards sit at the 21st percentile among all GPUs, meaning they are both entry-level performers by modern standards. The GT 545’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (average score 3596, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3616, -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629, -1%). This places the GT 545 within 1% of the GTX 1050, a far more modern card, which is notable given the significant architectural and generational gap. The Quadro 2000M, meanwhile, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431, +0.1%), the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, +1.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528, -2.7%). The Quadro 2000M’s 3.1% advantage over the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) is its largest positive delta among listed rivals, indicating that it comfortably outpaces integrated graphics.

The benchmark data suggests that while the GT 545 wins the head-to-head, the performance difference is small enough that real-world application choice may matter more than raw scores. A 4.7% delta is within the margin of error for many workloads, and the Quadro 2000M’s higher FP32 throughput (422.4 GFLOPS vs. 414.7 GFLOPS) hints that certain compute tasks could favor it despite the lower overall OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built by TSMC on the same 40 nm process node, with identical transistor counts of 1,170 million and the same die size of 238 mm². This yields a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter for both. The core chips, however, differ: the GT 545 uses the GF116 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip. Both are part of the Fermi architecture family, but the GT 545 is specifically designated as Fermi 2.0, suggesting a refined revision, whereas the Quadro 2000M is listed simply as Fermi.

The most significant architectural divergence lies in the compute unit configuration. The Quadro 2000M packs 192 shading units and 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), compared to the GT 545’s 144 shading units and 24 TMUs. Both cards have 16 raster operation units (ROPs). This means the Quadro 2000M has 33% more shading units and TMUs than the GT 545, which should theoretically give it an advantage in shader-heavy workloads. However, the GT 545 compensates with a wider memory bus: 192-bit versus 128-bit for the Quadro 2000M. This wider bus, combined with a lower memory clock (800 MHz vs. 900 MHz), still results in higher memory bandwidth for the GT 545: 38.40 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. The GT 545’s bandwidth advantage is 33%, exactly mirroring the Quadro 2000M’s shading unit advantage.

Memory capacity also differs, with the GT 545 offering 1536 MB of DDR3 and the Quadro 2000M offering 2 GB of DDR3. The GT 545’s larger bus width helps it achieve higher pixel and texture rates despite having fewer TMUs — the pixel rates are 4.320 GPixel/s for the GT 545 and 4.400 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000M, while texture rates are 17.28 GTexel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s, respectively. The Quadro 2000M edges out the GT 545 in both of these metrics by roughly 2%, which aligns with its higher shader count and clock speeds.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The GT 545’s memory runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), while the Quadro 2000M’s runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), but the GT 545’s wider bus overcomes the clock deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 545 wins in scenarios that benefit from high memory bandwidth. With 38.40 GB/s available, it is better suited for tasks that stream large textures or datasets, such as high-resolution texture mapping or certain compute workloads that are bandwidth-bound. Its 192-bit bus is a significant advantage over the Quadro 2000M’s 128-bit bus, and this is reflected in its higher OpenCL score. The GT 545 is also a desktop card with a single-slot form factor and display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA, making it a plug-and-play option for a workstation desktop.

The Quadro 2000M wins in shader-heavy and texture-heavy workloads. Its 192 shading units and 32 TMUs provide 33% more compute and texture processing capacity than the GT 545. This translates to higher FP32 throughput (422.4 GFLOPS vs. 414.7 GFLOPS) and a slightly higher texture rate (17.60 GTexel/s vs. 17.28 GTexel/s). For applications that rely heavily on pixel shaders, geometry processing, or complex lighting models, the Quadro 2000M’s extra shading units could offset its bandwidth disadvantage. Additionally, the Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of memory versus 1536 MB, which is beneficial for larger datasets or higher-resolution framebuffers, even if the bus is narrower.

The Quadro 2000M also wins on power efficiency. Its TDP is 55 W, compared to 70 W for the GT 545. This makes it a better fit for mobile workstations, as it is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-A (3.0), rather than a PCIe 2.0 x16 desktop card. The Quadro 2000M’s lower power draw means less heat and longer battery life in a laptop environment, though the GT 545’s suggested PSU of 250 W is modest for a desktop.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434, giving the GT 545 a 4.7% advantage.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GT 545 is within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629, delta -1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3616, delta -0.6%). The Quadro 2000M is 3.1% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) and 2.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, compared to 144 on the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GT 545 has 38.40 GB/s of bandwidth via a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro 2000M has 28.80 GB/s via a 128-bit bus, a 33% advantage for the GT 545.

Q: Are both cards from the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on the Fermi architecture, but the GT 545 is specifically Fermi 2.0, while the Quadro 2000M is listed as Fermi. Both use the same 40 nm process node with 1,170 million transistors.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 has a TDP of 70 W.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 is the higher-performing card. Its 4.7% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the only direct comparison available, and it is the sole winner in the head-to-head benchmarks with 1 win against 0 for the Quadro 2000M. The GT 545’s memory bandwidth advantage (38.40 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s) is the most likely driver of this result, as it allows for faster data movement in compute tasks. For users prioritizing raw benchmark scores or working with bandwidth-sensitive applications, the GT 545 is the clear choice.

However, the Quadro 2000M is not without merit. Its 192 shading units and 32 TMUs offer superior theoretical compute capacity, and its 2 GB of memory exceeds the GT 545’s 1536 MB. The Quadro 2000M also consumes 15 W less power, making it a more efficient option for mobile or thermally constrained environments. For workloads that are shader-bound rather than bandwidth-bound, the Quadro 2000M could potentially match or exceed the GT 545, even if the OpenCL score does not reflect this.

The verdict depends on the use case. For a desktop workstation where raw compute scores matter most, the GT 545 is the better pick. For a mobile workstation or a scenario where power consumption and memory capacity are critical, the Quadro 2000M is the more appropriate choice. Both cards sit at the 21st percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level solutions, and neither supports modern features like ray tracing or Vulkan.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000M |

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

| Chip | GF116 | GF106 |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi |

| Memory Size | 1536 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.40 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 144 | 192 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.320 GPixel/s | 4.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.28 GTexel/s | 17.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 414.7 GFLOPS | 422.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 70 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x VGA | Portable Device Dependent |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

| Length | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2011-05-13 | 2011-01-12 |