NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life parts from the early 2010s, but they arrive at low-tier performance from opposite directions: one is a mobile Kepler chip built on a modern 28 nm process, the other a workstation Fermi card that trades transistor efficiency for GDDR5 bandwidth and certified single-slot delivery. The recorded data shows the Quadro 2000D winning the only head-to-head benchmark these two share, yet the GT 645M posts the higher average benchmark score across the database. This comparison unpacks that apparent contradiction and explains which chip suits which workload.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head record is brief but decisive. Both cards have recorded Geekbench OpenCL results, and the Quadro 2000D wins that contest with a score of 3930 against the GT 645M's 2680, a gap of 31.8 percent in the workstation card's favor. For any compute workload that runs through OpenCL, image processing, video encode pipelines, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU compute, the database indicates the Quadro 2000D is the stronger choice of the two, despite being the older design.

The GT 645M's case rests on breadth rather than a single victory. Its average benchmark score of 4411 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database, ahead of the Quadro 2000D's 3930 average and 23rd percentile standing. It also posts Geekbench Metal and Vulkan results of 5679 and 4875 respectively, tests for which the Quadro 2000D has no recorded score at all. That Vulkan result matters beyond raw numbers: the Quadro 2000D's API list contains no Vulkan entry at all, while the GT 645M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Any application built on Vulkan simply runs on one of these cards and not the other.

The split, then, is workload-driven. OpenCL compute favors the Quadro. Modern graphics APIs and broader benchmark coverage favor the GeForce. Neither card competes seriously beyond the bottom quartile of the database, but within that tier the GT 645M's Kepler architecture gives it the more contemporary software footing.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from consecutive NVIDIA eras and it shows in nearly every specification. The GT 645M is a Kepler-generation part, the GK107 die, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimetre. The Quadro 2000D belongs to the Fermi generation, the GF106 die, built on a much older 40 nm process. It carries fewer transistors, 1,170 million, spread across a much larger 238 mm² die, working out to just 4.9 million transistors per square millimetre. Kepler more than doubles the transistor density, which is the clearest single measure of the generational gap between them.

The compute resources tell a similar story. The GT 645M fields 384 shading units to the Quadro's 192, doubling the raw shader count, and it delivers higher theoretical throughput across the board: 599.0 GFLOPS of FP32 against 480.0 GFLOPS, a pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s against 5.000 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 24.96 GTexel/s against 20.00 GTexel/s. Both chips have 32 texture mapping units and 16 render output units, so the rasterization back ends are identical in width; the differences come from shader count and clock speed.

Memory is where the Quadro fights back. The GT 645M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, running at 900 MHz for 1800 Mbps effective, which yields 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D pairs a smaller 1024 MB frame buffer with much faster GDDR5, clocked at 650 MHz and 2.6 Gbps effective, producing 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth on the same 128-bit bus. That is roughly 44 percent more memory bandwidth for the older card, and it explains how the Fermi part overcomes its shader deficit in the OpenCL test. The trade-off is capacity: at 1024 MB, the Quadro will hit memory limits in modern workloads far sooner than the GT 645M's 2 GB.

Clocking also differs in structure. The GT 645M lists a 709 MHz base clock with boost to 780 MHz, an approach where the GPU can raise frequency under favorable conditions. The Quadro 2000D records no base or boost clock in the database at all, consistent with a fixed-frequency workstation part. Connectivity diverges as well: the GT 645M is an IGP-class mobile part with portable-device-dependent display outputs and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro 2000D is a single-slot desktop card measuring 178 mm long and 111 mm tall, with two DVI outputs on a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it goes to the Quadro 2000D: 3930 versus 2680, a 31.8 percent margin. This is the standout result of the matchup. The Quadro's GDDR5 subsystem, with 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth against 28.80 GB/s, gives compute kernels the memory headroom the DDR3-equipped GeForce cannot match, and the older architecture converts that advantage into a clear win despite fielding half the shading units.

Context from each card's rival list sharpens the picture. The Quadro 2000D's OpenCL result places it alongside the Quadro K2000D (average score 3919, a delta of just 0.3 percent) and slightly ahead of the GeForce GT 745M, Radeon R5 M420, and GeForce 830M, which sit within roughly one percent of it. The GT 645M's OpenCL score of 2680, by contrast, is its weakest recorded result, well below its own average of 4411.

The GT 645M's stronger showings come in the tests the Quadro does not have entries for. Its Geekbench Metal score is 5679 and its Vulkan score is 4875, and those numbers pull its average up to 4411, good for the 26th percentile versus the Quadro's 23rd. Against its own nearest rivals, the GT 645M edges the GeForce 930M (average 4388, 0.5 percent behind), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, 1.2 percent behind), and the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, 1.8 percent behind), while trailing the Radeon R7 M260 (4499) by 1.9 percent. The overall win count across shared tests is one to zero in the Quadro's favor, but the score averages favor the GeForce, which is the honest summary of this pairing: the Quadro wins where they can be directly compared, and the GeForce posts better results elsewhere.

FAQ

**Q: Which card is faster overall?

** A: By average benchmark score, the GT 645M leads, 4411 to 3930, and ranks at the 26th percentile versus the Quadro's 23rd. However, the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, is won by the Quadro 2000D by a 31.8 percent margin.

**Q: Which card has better memory?

** A: It depends on the metric. The Quadro 2000D has faster memory, GDDR5 delivering 41.60 GB/s versus the GT 645M's 28.80 GB/s from DDR3. The GT 645M has more capacity, 2 GB versus 1024 MB. Both use a 128-bit bus.

**Q: Which architecture is newer?

** A: The GT 645M. It is a Kepler chip (GK107) on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 2000D is a Fermi chip (GF106) on 40 nm. Kepler achieves 10.8M transistors per mm² against Fermi's 4.9M.

**Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

** A: Both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GT 645M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support recorded.

**Q: How do their power and form factors differ?

** A: The GT 645M is a 32 W mobile-class IGP part with no power connectors. The Quadro 2000D is a 62 W single-slot desktop card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

**Q: Are either of these cards still in production?

** A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The GT 645M was released on 30 September 2012, and the Quadro 2000D on 4 October 2011.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: GT 645M is Kepler (GK107); Quadro 2000D is Fermi (GF106)
• Generation: GeForce 600M versus Quadro Fermi (x000)
• Process node: 28 nm versus 40 nm (both TSMC)
• Transistors: 1,270 million versus 1,170 million
• Die size: 118 mm² versus 238 mm²
• Transistor density: 10.8M/mm² versus 4.9M/mm²
• GPU clocks: 709 MHz base, 780 MHz boost (GT 645M) versus no base or boost clocks recorded
• Memory size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB
• Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s
• Shading units: 384 versus 192
• Pixel rate: 6.240 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 24.96 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s
• FP32 compute: 599.0 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: 32 W versus 62 W
• Slot width: IGP versus single-slot
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 2x DVI
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus none
• Dimensions: not recorded for the GT 645M; 178 mm by 111 mm for the Quadro 2000D
• Suggested PSU: none listed versus 250 W
• Release date: 30 September 2012 versus 4 October 2011
• Predecessor: GeForce 500M versus Quadro FX Tesla
• Successor: GeForce 700M versus Quadro Kepler
• Launch MSRP: not listed for the GT 645M; 599 USD for the Quadro 2000D

Identical specifications include the 128-bit memory bus, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, the lack of RT and tensor cores, TSMC as foundry, no power connectors on either board, DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, and end-of-life production status for both.