NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single OpenCL benchmark for both cards, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594 points. That translates to an 18% advantage for the Quadro K3000M, a substantial gap that places the two chips in different performance tiers despite their similar power envelopes.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 points (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M at 4282 points (1% ahead), and the AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295 points (1.3% ahead). Interestingly, the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti trails the Quadro K3000M by 1.2%, scoring 4193 points. The Quadro K3000M is therefore bracketed by a mix of integrated graphics, older mobile gaming chips, and even a modern desktop GPU, which suggests its OpenCL performance is competitive with hardware from several generations.

The GeForce GT 545, by contrast, resides at the 21st percentile. Its nearest rivals paint a different picture: the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation scores 3596 points, just 0.1% ahead, and the GeForce GT 735M scores 3616 points, 0.6% ahead. The GeForce GTX 1050 scores 3629 points, 1% ahead, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 leads by 1.5% with 3649 points. The GT 545 is thus clustered with low-end mobile parts and an older desktop card, all within a narrow 1.5% band. The 18% delta between the two reviewed cards is far wider than any gap seen within their respective rival groups.

The head-to-head benchmark table confirms the result with a single entry: the Quadro K3000M wins 1 test, and the GT 545 wins 0. There are no multi-test splits, no mixed results. Every recorded measurement points the same direction.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows only one discipline: OpenCL compute performance. In that arena, the Quadro K3000M wins outright. The 18% lead is meaningful for workloads that rely on general-purpose GPU computation, such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, image processing, or scientific calculations. The Quadro K3000M delivers 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 414.7 GFLOPS for the GT 545, which explains the score gap in raw arithmetic terms.

The GT 545 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, its single-slot desktop form factor and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface make it a straightforward drop-in card for older systems, while the Quadro K3000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface and is described as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs. That means the GT 545 is more practical for upgrading a desktop tower, whereas the Quadro K3000M is tied to laptops or workstations with MXM slots.

The GT 545 also offers a lower transistor count at 1,170 million versus 3,540 million, and a smaller die at 238 mm² versus 294 mm². For users who prioritize simplicity of installation over compute throughput, the GT 545 has a use case. But for raw performance, the Quadro K3000M is the clear winner in every measured category.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, and the gap in their design philosophies is evident. The Quadro K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GT 545 uses the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF116 chip, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process node. The process shrink alone gives the Quadro K3000M a significant density advantage: it packs 3,540 million transistors into 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GT 545, with 1,170 million transistors on 238 mm², achieves only 4.9 million per square millimeter.

These architectural differences cascade into the compute resources. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations units. The GT 545 has 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K3000M therefore has 4 times the shading units, 2 times the TMUs, and 2 times the ROPs of the GT 545. The pixel rate reflects this: 7.848 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 4.320 GPixel/s for the GT 545. Texture rate similarly favors the Quadro at 31.39 GTexel/s against 17.28 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The Quadro K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 545 uses 1536 MB of DDR3 on a 192-bit bus, with 38.40 GB/s. The memory clock differs as well: the Quadro runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective data rate, while the GT 545 runs at 800 MHz with 1600 Mbps effective. The Quadro's wider bus and faster memory type more than compensate for its lower clock speed.

The API support shows some overlap but also a notable omission. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 545 has no Vulkan support listed. That is a practical difference for modern applications that rely on Vulkan for cross-platform graphics and compute.

Specification Differences

Several specification fields differ between the two cards, and they are worth enumerating for clarity. The Quadro K3000M has a base clock of 654 MHz with no boost, while the GT 545 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The memory configuration differs, as noted: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus versus 1536 MB DDR3 on a 192-bit bus. Bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 38.40 GB/s.

Compute resources differ: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the Quadro; 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the GT 545. Pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 4.320 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 17.28 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 414.7 GFLOPS.

Power consumption is close: the Quadro K3000M is rated at 75 W TDP, the GT 545 at 70 W TDP. The GT 545 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro has no such field. The form factor differs: the Quadro is an MXM Module, the GT 545 is Single-slot. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GT 545. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro, while the GT 545 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA. The GT 545 has a physical length of 145 mm (5.7 inches), while the Quadro has no length listed.

Release dates also differ: the GT 545 launched earlier on 2011-05-13, while the Quadro K3000M followed on 2012-05-31. The GT 545 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, whereas the Quadro K3000M has no launch MSRP recorded. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 scores 3594 points, giving the Quadro an 18% advantage.

Q: How does the GT 545 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GT 545 is closely matched with its nearest rivals. The RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation scores 3596 points (0.1% ahead), the GeForce GT 735M scores 3616 points (0.6% ahead), the GeForce GTX 1050 scores 3629 points (1% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649 points (1.5% ahead).

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The Quadro K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 545 uses 1536 MB of DDR3 on a 192-bit bus with 38.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K3000M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GT 545 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the GT 545 has 144 shading units, a 4x difference.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, and the GT 545 has a TDP of 70 W. The GT 545 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the stronger GPU in every measured compute benchmark. Its 18% lead in OpenCL performance, combined with 4x the shading units, 2x the texture units, and more than double the memory bandwidth, makes it the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads. The 753.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 414.7 GFLOPS is a decisive gap.

The GT 545, however, is not without a purpose. Its single-slot desktop form factor, PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and direct display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x VGA) make it an easy installation in legacy desktop systems. Its lower transistor count and smaller die suggest a less complex design that may be simpler to cool and power, and its 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU requirement are modest.

Users who need OpenCL compute performance, such as for rendering or scientific tasks, should choose the Quadro K3000M without hesitation. The benchmark record shows no scenario where the GT 545 wins. Users who need a simple desktop upgrade with minimal power draw and standard display connectors might consider the GT 545, but they should be aware that its compute performance sits at the 21st percentile, below the Quadro's 25th percentile and far behind in absolute terms.

The verdict from the database is clear: the Quadro K3000M is the performance leader, the GT 545 is the convenience option. For anyone prioritizing measured performance, the choice is the Quadro K3000M.