NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 are both end-of-life Fermi-era parts, but they target very different use cases. The Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation component designed for laptops, while the GT 545 is a desktop card meant for general consumer use. Despite their architectural kinship, the data shows a clear performance split, with the Quadro 3000M taking the only available benchmark win.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a single point of comparison: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the Quadro 3000M scores 3718, while the GT 545 scores 3594. The Quadro 3000M wins this head-to-head by a 3.5% margin. This is a narrow but definitive lead for the mobile workstation part.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro 3000M sits at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 545 sits at the 21st percentile. This means both are in the lower tier of overall performance, but the Quadro 3000M edges out its desktop counterpart in raw compute. The Quadro 3000M's nearest rival is the GeForce GT 740M, with an average score of 3717, which is a 0% delta. This indicates the Quadro 3000M is essentially tied with a newer mobile part in this test.

For the GT 545, its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation with an average score of 3596, a -0.1% delta. This is a surprising pairing, showing that the GT 545's score is within statistical noise of a far more modern and powerful GPU in this specific OpenCL workload. The GT 545 also trails the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 1.5%, while the Quadro 3000M leads that same AMD card by 1.9%. The data suggests the Quadro 3000M is the stronger compute performer, while the GT 545 is a more capable desktop multimedia card based on its connectivity and form factor, though no benchmark data supports that latter claim.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same 40nm TSMC process node and use a Fermi-derived architecture, but they diverge in implementation. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip, while the GT 545 uses the GF116 chip. The GF104 is a larger and more complex die, measuring 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors. The GF116 is smaller at 238 mm² with 1,170 million transistors. This size difference leads to a higher transistor density for the Quadro 3000M at 5.9M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm² for the GT 545.

The Quadro 3000M is configured with 240 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GT 545 has fewer of each: 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This hardware advantage translates directly to compute metrics. The Quadro 3000M delivers 432.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and a texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s. The GT 545 delivers 414.7 GFLOPS and 17.28 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are nearly identical, with the Quadro 3000M at 4.500 GPixel/s and the GT 545 at 4.320 GPixel/s.

Memory is a major differentiator. The Quadro 3000M uses 2GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 545 uses 1536MB of DDR3 on a 192-bit bus, providing only 38.40 GB/s — less than half the bandwidth. The GT 545's memory clock is 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), while the Quadro 3000M's memory runs at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective, showing the GDDR5 advantage despite a lower clock. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but neither lists Vulkan support.

The Verdict

The choice between these two comes down to platform and intended workload. The Quadro 3000M is the superior compute performer, winning the only benchmark by 3.5%. It offers substantially more memory bandwidth, double the ROPs, and nearly double the TMUs. For any task that relies on OpenCL compute — such as rendering, simulation, or data processing — the Quadro 3000M is the better pick based on the data.

The GT 545, however, is a desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and a 145mm length, making it suitable for a standard desktop build. It has a lower TDP of 70W versus 75W for the Quadro 3000M. The GT 545 also has a suggested PSU of 250W, while the Quadro 3000M lists no such requirement. The Quadro 3000M is an MXM module, meaning it is exclusively for laptops and cannot be used in a desktop.

If you are building a desktop and require a basic display adapter with HDMI 1.3a, DVI, and VGA outputs, the GT 545 is the practical choice. If you need mobile workstation performance, the Quadro 3000M is the only option. The GT 545 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The Quadro 3000M has no launch MSRP listed. The performance gap is small in compute, but the Quadro 3000M's memory subsystem is decisively better, which may show in memory-bound workloads even if the OpenCL score only shows a 3.5% difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718, while the GeForce GT 545 scores 3594, giving the Quadro 3000M a 3.5% lead.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5, while the GT 545 has 38.40 GB/s using DDR3. The Quadro 3000M's bandwidth is more than double that of the GT 545.

Q: Can I use the Quadro 3000M in a desktop PC?

A: No. The Quadro 3000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is an MXM Module, which is designed for portable devices. The GT 545 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface for desktop motherboards.

Q: How do these cards compare to the AMD Radeon HD 6770?

A: The Quadro 3000M leads the Radeon HD 6770 by 1.9%, while the GT 545 trails it by 1.5%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75W, while the GT 545 has a TDP of 70W. The GT 545 also suggests a 250W power supply, while the Quadro 3000M lists no suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, compared to 144 on the GT 545.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only available head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 3000M scores 3718 against the GT 545's 3594, a 3.5% delta in favor of the Quadro 3000M. This is a modest win, but it is consistent with the hardware specifications. The Quadro 3000M has 40 texture mapping units to the GT 545's 24, and 32 ROPs to 16. This means the Quadro 3000M can handle more texture fetches and pixel output per clock, even though the pixel rate is nearly identical (4.500 vs 4.320 GPixel/s).

The FP32 compute output is also higher on the Quadro 3000M: 432.0 GFLOPS vs 414.7 GFLOPS. The GT 545's memory bandwidth is a severe bottleneck at 38.40 GB/s, which likely explains its lower OpenCL score despite a similar raw compute capacity. The Quadro 3000M's 80.00 GB/s bandwidth makes a significant difference in memory-intensive OpenCL workloads.

It is notably the GT 545's nearest rival is the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, with only a 0.1% difference. This suggests the GT 545's score is not anomalous but rather reflects a specific performance point in this test. The Quadro 3000M's nearest rival is the GT 740M, with a 0% delta, indicating that the Quadro 3000M performs at a level comparable to a newer mobile part. In terms of the direct matchup, the Quadro 3000M wins the only benchmark, and the specification sheet supports that outcome.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every key specification. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip, while the GT 545 uses the GF116. The Quadro 3000M has a larger die (332 mm² vs 238 mm²) and more transistors (1,950 million vs 1,170 million). The memory configuration is completely different: the Quadro 3000M has 2GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the GT 545 has 1536MB DDR3 on a 192-bit bus with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute resources favor the Quadro 3000M: 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the GT 545. The FP32 performance is 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 3000M and 414.7 GFLOPS for the GT 545. The texture rates are 18.00 GTexel/s and 17.28 GTexel/s, respectively. The pixel rates are 4.500 GPixel/s and 4.320 GPixel/s.

The GT 545 is a desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, a 145mm length, and a single-slot form factor. It has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA. The Quadro 3000M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0) and has "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The GT 545 has a suggested PSU of 250W, while the Quadro 3000M lists none. The TDPs are close, at 70W for the GT 545 and 75W for the Quadro 3000M. The GT 545 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the Quadro 3000M has none listed.