NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 are both end-of-life products from NVIDIA, but they represent two very different philosophies. The K2000 is a professional workstation card built on the Kepler architecture, while the GT 545 is a consumer desktop GPU from the Fermi 2.0 generation. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Quadro K2000 dominating the single available head-to-head benchmark, but the story is more nuanced regarding their respective strengths and target use cases.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins the only shared test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 4071 compared to the GT 545’s 3594. This represents a 13.3% advantage for the K2000. In a broad sense, the Quadro K2000 is the outright winner in compute performance. Its average benchmark score across three tests is 3964, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The GT 545, which only has one benchmark result, scores an average of 3594 and sits in the 21st percentile.

The use-case split is defined by the features each card offers rather than just raw compute. The Quadro K2000 is positioned for professional workloads, as indicated by its display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, which are standard for multi-monitor workstation setups. It supports both Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). The GeForce GT 545, on the other hand, targets consumer usage, with its display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA, making it a more flexible option for legacy displays and home theater PCs. The GT 545 does not support Vulkan, a key differentiator for modern gaming and compute applications. Therefore, the K2000 wins in professional and modern API scenarios, while the GT 545’s only potential advantage lies in its legacy connectivity options.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is significant, representing two different design philosophies from NVIDIA. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node allows for a relatively compact die size of 118 mm², housing 1,270 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm². The GT 545, in contrast, uses the GF116 chip from the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a larger 40 nm process. This results in a much larger die size of 238 mm², despite having fewer transistors (1,170 million), leading to a lower transistor density of just 4.9 million per mm².

These core differences cascade into the rest of the specifications. The Quadro K2000 is equipped with 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The GT 545 has significantly fewer computational resources, with just 144 shading units and 24 TMUs, though it also has 16 ROPs. The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The GT 545 uses 1536 MB of DDR3 memory on a wider 192-bit bus, but this results in a lower bandwidth of only 38.40 GB/s. The memory clock speeds reflect this, with the K2000 running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and the GT 545 at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective). The K2000’s memory type and bandwidth are clearly superior for data-intensive tasks.

The feature sets also diverge. The K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 545 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support. This makes the K2000 more future-proof for applications leveraging Vulkan. The physical design differs as well; the K2000 is a longer card at 202 mm (8 inches) with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the GT 545 is shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches). Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested power supply of 250 W, but the K2000 has a lower TDP of 51 W compared to the GT 545’s 70 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it provides a clear verdict. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594. This yields a delta of 13.3% in favor of the K2000. This is a decisive win that aligns with the raw specifications. The K2000 has more than double the shading units (384 vs 144) and nearly double the texture fill rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 17.28 GTexel/s). Its FP32 performance is also substantially higher at 732.7 GFLOPS compared to the GT 545’s 414.7 GFLOPS.

Looking at the broader context, the K2000’s average score of 3964 puts it in a close fight with its nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, +0.2%) and AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, +0.2%). It trails the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by a mere 0.3%. The GT 545’s single score of 3594 places it near the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596, -0.1%), which is a surprising pairing, but it is 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 and 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6770. This shows that while the K2000 is competitive with other mid-range mobile and older desktop parts, the GT 545 is clearly at the lower end of the performance spectrum, even relative to some integrated or older solutions.

The data implies that the K2000’s architectural advantages—more cores, faster memory, and a modern process node—translate directly into a meaningful compute performance lead. The 13.3% difference in the OpenCL test is not marginal; it is a substantial gap that would be noticeable in any compute-heavy workload. The GT 545’s wider memory bus (192-bit vs 128-bit) does not compensate for its slower DDR3 memory and lower bandwidth.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is clear for most users. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is the superior product in terms of raw compute performance, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 13.3%. Its advantages in shading units, texture rate, FP32 performance, and memory bandwidth make it the better option for any application that leverages GPGPU compute, such as rendering, scientific simulations, or video encoding. Its support for Vulkan also gives it a modern software feature that the GT 545 lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545, however, is not without its niche. Its legacy display outputs (VGA and HDMI 1.3a) and shorter physical length (145 mm) could make it a suitable drop-in replacement for older systems where space is a constraint and modern display connectivity is not required. Its lower average benchmark score (3594 vs 3964) and percentile rank (21st vs 24th) confirm it is a less capable part.

For a professional workstation context, the Quadro K2000 is the obvious pick. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and DisplayPort outputs are designed for professional workflows. For a consumer with an old system needing a basic display output, the GT 545 could suffice, but the performance data strongly favors the K2000 in every measurable way. The verdict is that the Quadro K2000 is the better GPU, with the GT 545 only being relevant for specific legacy hardware scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 3964, compared to the GeForce GT 545’s 3594.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2000 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K2000 scores 4071, which is 13.3% higher than the GeForce GT 545’s score of 3594.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: No. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the Quadro K2000 supports Vulkan (1.2.175). The GeForce GT 545 has no Vulkan support.

Q: What are the main differences in memory configuration?

A: The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GeForce GT 545 uses 1536 MB of DDR3 memory on a 192-bit bus but with a lower 38.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a lower power consumption requirement?

A: The Quadro K2000 has a lower TDP of 51 W, while the GeForce GT 545 has a TDP of 70 W. Both have the same suggested power supply of 250 W.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K2000’s average score is nearly identical to the GeForce 830M and Radeon R5 M420, with a 0.2% delta. The GT 545’s score is 1% lower than the GeForce GTX 1050 and 1.5% lower than the Radeon HD 6770.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 38.40 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 384 | 144 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 4.320 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 17.28 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 732.7 GFLOPS | 414.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 51 W | 70 W |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x VGA |

| Dimensions (Length) | 202 mm (8 inches) | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2011-05-13 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | 149 USD |