NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database for these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4,893 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M manages 2,680 points. The GTS 450 leads by 82.6%, a massive margin that places the desktop Fermi part in a different performance class for compute workloads.

This 82.6% advantage is not a marginal edge; it is nearly double the raw score. The GT 645M’s OpenCL result is closer to entry-level integrated graphics territory, whereas the GTS 450 sits near the midpoint of the database’s GPU distribution. The GTS 450’s percentile rank is 28, meaning it outperforms 28% of all GPUs in the database. The GT 645M’s percentile is 26, only two points lower, which seems to contradict the large score gap. This occurs because the database’s percentile calculation includes a wide range of both discrete and integrated parts, and the density of GPUs clustered around the lower-midrange scores compresses the percentile differences. In absolute terms, however, the GTS 450’s 4,893 vs. 2,680 score leaves no ambiguity about which part is faster in OpenCL.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The GTS 450’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4,901, a delta of -0.2% relative to the GTS 450. This means the GTS 450 is essentially tied with a modern RTX 50-series card in this particular OpenCL workload, a surprising result that likely reflects the benchmark’s sensitivity to memory bandwidth or driver optimizations rather than raw architectural throughput. The GTS 450 also trails the AMD FirePro W5130M by 0.2% (4,904 vs. 4,893) and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 by 0.7% (4,929 vs. 4,893), while beating the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX by 0.5% (4,867 vs. 4,893). These are all within a narrow band, indicating that the GTS 450’s OpenCL score is highly competitive with a broad range of midrange parts from both vendors.

The GT 645M’s nearest rivals paint a different picture. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, which scores 4,388, a delta of 0.5% in favor of the GT 645M (4,411 average vs. 4,388). The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 4,360, which the GT 645M beats by 1.2%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 scores 4,335, which the GT 645M beats by 1.8%. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 4,499, which beats the GT 645M by 1.9%. These deltas are all small, placing the GT 645M in a tight cluster of midrange and integrated parts. However, the GT 645M’s average benchmark score is 4,411, which is lower than the GTS 450’s 4,893. The GT 645M also has additional benchmark entries: a Geekbench Metal score of 5,679 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4,875. These are not directly comparable to the GTS 450, which only has an OpenCL entry, but they suggest that the GT 645M can perform better in API-specific workloads than its OpenCL score would indicate.

The head-to-head table in the database records 1 win for the GTS 450 and 0 wins for the GT 645M. That is the entirety of the direct comparison. The GTS 450’s victory in OpenCL is substantial, but it is the only metric where both cards were tested under identical conditions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 is significantly faster, scoring 4,893 points versus 2,680 points for the GT 645M. This is an 82.6% advantage.

Q: How does the GTS 450 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTS 450 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901, delta -0.2%) and the AMD FirePro W5130M (4,904, delta -0.2%). It slightly trails the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4,929, delta -0.7%) and slightly beats the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4,867, delta 0.5%).

Q: Does the GT 645M have any benchmark results that are not available for the GTS 450?

A: Yes, the GT 645M has Geekbench Metal and Vulkan results. Its Metal score is 5,679 and its Vulkan score is 4,875. The GTS 450 only has an OpenCL score in the database.

Q: How does the GT 645M fare against its own nearest rivals?

A: The GT 645M beats the NVIDIA GeForce 930M by 0.5% (4,411 vs. 4,388), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 1.2% (4,411 vs. 4,360), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 by 1.8% (4,411 vs. 4,335). It loses to the AMD Radeon R7 M260 by 1.9% (4,411 vs. 4,499).

Q: What do the percentile ranks indicate about these two GPUs?

A: The GTS 450 is at the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GT 645M is at the 26th percentile. Despite the large OpenCL score gap, both cards sit near the same percentile band, suggesting that the database contains many GPUs with scores in this range.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTS 450 has an average benchmark score of 4,893, while the GT 645M has an average of 4,411. The GTS 450’s average is higher by 482 points.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute. Its 4,893 score versus 2,680 is a landslide victory, and the 82.6% delta is one of the largest margins seen in the database for comparable parts. The GTS 450 also holds a higher average benchmark score (4,893 vs. 4,411) and a slightly higher percentile rank (28 vs. 26). For users whose primary concern is raw compute performance in OpenCL, the GTS 450 is the unambiguous choice.

However, the GT 645M is not without merit in specific contexts. Its Geekbench Metal score of 5,679 is notably higher than its OpenCL score, indicating that it may be better suited to Apple’s Metal API. Its Vulkan score of 4,875 is also respectable, nearly matching the GTS 450’s OpenCL score. If the target application uses Metal or Vulkan exclusively, the GT 645M could be the better option, despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head.

The GT 645M also has a major power advantage. Its TDP is 32 W, while the GTS 450 draws 106 W. This makes the GT 645M suitable for portable devices and passively cooled systems, whereas the GTS 450 requires a dual-slot cooler, a 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W power supply. The GT 645M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, making it far easier to integrate into a laptop or compact system.

For desktop builders with access to a PCIe slot and power supply headroom, the GTS 450 is the better performer. For laptop users or those prioritizing power efficiency, the GT 645M is the only realistic option, despite its lower OpenCL performance. The database’s direct comparison is one-sided, but the GT 645M’s additional API support and low power draw make it a viable part in its intended market segment.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their memory subsystems. The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, while the GT 645M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the GTS 450’s memory bandwidth is 57.73 GB/s, more than double the GT 645M’s 28.80 GB/s. The GTS 450’s memory clock is 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the GT 645M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GT 645M’s larger capacity is offset by its much lower bandwidth.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTS 450 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, while the GT 645M has a base clock of 709 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz. The GTS 450’s memory clock is higher, as noted above.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, is dual-slot, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GT 645M has a TDP of 32 W, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The GTS 450 measures 210 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the GT 645M has no dimensions listed.

The bus interface differs: the GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GT 645M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are also different. The GTS 450 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a, while the GT 645M’s outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent.”

The GTS 450 has a launch MSRP of 129 USD. The GT 645M has no launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, which explains many of their performance and efficiency characteristics. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated at TSMC’s 40 nm process. The GT 645M uses the GK107 chip built on the Kepler architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. The smaller process node allows the GT 645M to pack more transistors into a smaller die: 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, versus 1,170 million on a 238 mm² die for the GTS 450. This results in a transistor density of 10.8M per mm² for the GT 645M, compared to 4.9M per mm² for the GTS 450.

The compute resources differ significantly in configuration. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The GT 645M has 384 shading units, double the GTS 450’s count, but the same 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Despite having twice the shading units, the GT 645M’s FP32 performance is nearly identical: 599.0 GFLOPS versus 601.3 GFLOPS for the GTS 450. This is because the GT 645M’s lower clock speeds (709 MHz base, 780 MHz boost) offset its wider shader array. The pixel rate is also nearly the same: 6.264 GPixel/s for the GTS 450 versus 6.240 GPixel/s for the GT 645M. The texture rates are similarly close: 25.06 GTexel/s versus 24.96 GTexel/s.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those features. The API support is identical for DirectX (12 (11_0)) and OpenGL (4.6), but the GT 645M adds Vulkan support (version 1.2.175), while the GTS 450 has no Vulkan support listed. The GT 645M’s Kepler architecture was designed with a focus on power efficiency, which is reflected in its 32 W TDP, and it supports PCIe 3.0, whereas the GTS 450 is limited to PCIe 2.0.

The GT 645M belongs to the GeForce 600M generation, with a release date of September 2012, while the GTS 450 is from the GeForce 400 generation, released in September 2010. The GTS 450’s predecessor is GeForce 200 and its successor is GeForce 500. The GT 645M’s predecessor is GeForce 500M and its successor is GeForce 700M. Both are end-of-life products. The architectural differences, particularly the process node shrink and the doubling of shading units, explain why the GT 645M achieves similar compute throughput at a fraction of the power draw, even though it loses decisively in the OpenCL benchmark due to its lower memory bandwidth and clock speeds.