GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a stark generational divide between these two NVIDIA cards. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 545, a Fermi 2.0 product from the GeForce 500 generation, is decisively outperformed by the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 in the only shared benchmark. The GeForce GT 545 scores 3,594 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro P1000 scores 13,584, a delta of -73.5% for the older card. This is not a close contest; it is a complete mismatch.

For any user deciding between these two based purely on the available data, the Quadro P1000 is the only rational choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its percentile rank of 20 places it just below the GeForce GT 545's 21st percentile, but this ranking is based on an average benchmark score of 3,163, which includes older DirectX tests where the card scores poorly (e.g., 21 in Passmark DirectX 10). The GeForce GT 545's average score is 3,594, but this is derived from a single OpenCL test. The Quadro P1000's superior raw compute power, faster memory, and more modern architecture make it the clear winner for any task leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan.

The GeForce GT 545, with its end-of-life status and 2011 release date, is a relic. Its only advantage is its launch MSRP of 149 USD, which can be stated once but does not offset its massive performance deficit. The Quadro P1000, despite being end-of-life itself, offers a modern feature set with DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4, making it a more future-proof option. In short, the data says: choose the Quadro P1000 unless you have a specific, legacy-only requirement that the GT 545 uniquely fulfills, which the benchmark data does not support.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data shows only one test where both cards were measured: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro P1000 wins this outright with a score of 13,584 against the GT 545's 3,594. This represents a 73.5% advantage for the P1000, a massive margin that indicates the Pascal architecture is fundamentally more efficient at compute tasks.

However, the Quadro P1000's benchmark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. Its Passmark scores show it excels in DirectX 9 (79) and G2D (589) tests, while lagging in DirectX 10 (21), DirectX 11 (31), and DirectX 12 (19). This suggests the card is optimized for specific workloads, likely professional 2D and legacy 3D applications, rather than modern gaming. Its G3D score of 4,512 and GPU compute score of 1,891 further indicate it is a capable general-purpose GPU.

The GeForce GT 545 has no wins in the head-to-head data. Its single OpenCL score of 3,594 is its only benchmark result, placing it in the 21st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3,596, -0.1%), the GeForce GT 735M (3,616, -0.6%), and the GeForce GTX 1050 (3,629, -1%). These deltas are all within 1.5%, indicating the GT 545 is clustered with entry-level mobile and desktop parts from much later generations. The data implies the GT 545's only "win" is its historical availability at a 149 USD launch price, but no performance metric supports its continued use.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by six years of GPU evolution, and the architectural data reflects this. The GeForce GT 545 uses the GF116 chip on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². In contrast, the Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process by Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0M per mm². This is a five-fold increase in transistor density, explaining the P1000's superior performance per watt.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The GT 545 has 1,536 MB of DDR3 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 38.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the P1000 more than doubles the bandwidth due to faster memory clocks (5 Gbps effective vs. 1,600 Mbps effective). The P1000 also has a base clock of 1,266 MHz and a boost clock of 1,480 MHz, while the GT 545 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock.

Compute resources are dramatically different. The GT 545 has 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 4.320 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.28 GTexel/s for the GT 545, versus 47.36 GPixel/s and 59.20 GTexel/s for the P1000. FP32 performance is equally lopsided: 414.7 GFLOPS for the GT 545 versus 1.894 TFLOPS for the P1000. The P1000 also lists an FP16 rate of 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GT 545 has no FP16 data.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro P1000 is overwhelmingly faster. It scores 13,584 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3,594 for the GT 545, a 73.5% difference. Its FP32 performance is 1.894 TFLOPS compared to 414.7 GFLOPS.

Q: Are these cards suitable for modern APIs?

A: The Quadro P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 545 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the GT 545 has 1,536 MB of DDR3 memory with 38.40 GB/s. The P1000 offers more than double the bandwidth despite a narrower 128-bit bus versus 192-bit.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GT 545 has a TDP of 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The P1000 has a TDP of 47 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The P1000 delivers far more performance while consuming less power.

Q: Which card has better display output options?

A: The P1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GT 545 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x VGA. The P1000's outputs are more modern and numerous.

Q: How do these cards rank against all other GPUs?

A: The GT 545 is in the 21st percentile with an average score of 3,594, while the P1000 is in the 20th percentile with an average score of 3,163. The P1000's average is dragged down by low Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 19 in DirectX 12).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a blowout. The Quadro P1000 scores 13,584, while the GeForce GT 545 scores 3,594. The delta is -73.5%, meaning the GT 545 achieves only about a quarter of the P1000's performance. This single data point encapsulates the entire generational gap: a 40 nm Fermi part from 2011 versus a 14 nm Pascal part from 2017.

To contextualize the GT 545's score, its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3,596, -0.1%), the GeForce GT 735M (3,616, -0.6%), and the GeForce GTX 1050 (3,629, -1%). These are all within 1.5% of the GT 545, showing it performs at the level of entry-level mobile GPUs. The Quadro P1000's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3,182, -0.6%) and the GeForce GT 640 (3,210, -1.5%), but its average score is heavily influenced by its Passmark results. Its G3D score of 4,512 and GPU compute score of 1,891 are far more representative of its actual compute capability than its low DirectX scores suggest.

The Quadro P1000's Vulkan score of 7,739 is another data point that the GT 545 cannot match, as it has no Vulkan support. The P1000's Passmark G2D score of 589 also indicates strong 2D performance, which is critical for professional workstation tasks. The GT 545 has no such metrics, limiting its applicability to compute-heavy workloads where OpenCL is the primary API.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, with all data drawn from the the benchmark database:

• Chip: GF116 (GT 545) vs. GP107 (P1000)
• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 vs. Pascal
• Generation: GeForce 500 vs. Quadro Pascal (Px000)
• Process Node: 40 nm vs. 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs. Samsung
• Transistors: 1,170 million vs. 3,300 million
• Die Size: 238 mm² vs. 132 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² vs. 25.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: N/A vs. 1,266 MHz
• Boost Clock: N/A vs. 1,480 MHz
• Memory Clock: 800 MHz / 1,600 Mbps effective vs. 1,253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 1,536 MB vs. 4 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs. GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 192 bit vs. 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 38.40 GB/s vs. 80.19 GB/s
• Shading Units: 144 vs. 640
• TMUs: 24 vs. 40
• ROPs: 16 vs. 32
• Pixel Rate: 4.320 GPixel/s vs. 47.36 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 17.28 GTexel/s vs. 59.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 414.7 GFLOPS vs. 1.894 TFLOPS
• FP16: N/A vs. 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 70 W vs. 47 W
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs. 200 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x VGA vs. 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: N/A vs. 1.4
• Release Date: 2011-05-13 vs. 2017-02-06
• Predecessor: GeForce 400 vs. Quadro Maxwell
• Successor: GeForce 600 vs. Quadro Volta
• Launch MSRP: 149 USD vs. N/A
• Dimensions: 145 mm length vs. 150 mm length, 69 mm height