NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data draws a clear line between these two mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life parts, but they serve different workloads and different eras of notebook design. The data shows the Quadro 3000M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a decisive 27.9% margin. That result positions the Quadro 3000M as the stronger compute performer of the pair, despite its older Fermi architecture and lower shading unit count.

The GeForce GT 645M, however, posts a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests. Its average sits at 4411, while the Quadro 3000M averages 3718. That gap of roughly 18.6% in favor of the GT 645M comes from the broader benchmark suite available for the consumer card, which includes Metal and Vulkan tests that the Quadro 3000M lacks entirely. For users seeking a general-purpose mobile GPU with wider API coverage, the GT 645M has the edge. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute in a professional mobile workstation, the Quadro 3000M is the data-backed choice.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The GT 645M sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 3000M sits at the 22nd. Both are near the lower end of the performance spectrum, but the GT 645M holds a modest overall standing advantage. The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize each card. The GT 645M trades blows with the GeForce 930M (0.5% ahead), Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (1.2% ahead), and AMD Radeon R7 M260 (1.9% behind). The Quadro 3000M sits essentially level with the GeForce GT 740M (0% delta) and GeForce GT 635M (0.6% behind).

The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro 3000M wins on the single shared compute metric, while the GT 645M wins on overall benchmark breadth and average score. Users who need OpenCL performance should choose the Quadro 3000M. Users who need a more versatile GPU with Vulkan and Metal support should choose the GT 645M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing generations. The GeForce GT 645M is built on Kepler, using the GK107 chip, while the Quadro 3000M is built on Fermi, using the GF104 chip. This architectural divide explains most of the performance and feature differences observed in the data.

The manufacturing process marks a major generational step. The GT 645M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node gives the GT 645M a significant transistor density advantage. The GT 645M packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro 3000M contains 1,950 million transistors across a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The GT 645M is the more efficiently packed chip, despite carrying fewer total transistors.

Core configuration differs substantially between the two. The GT 645M features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro 3000M counters with 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GT 645M has 60% more shading units, but the Quadro 3000M has 25% more TMUs and double the ROP count. These ratios explain the performance profile: the GT 645M excels in shader-heavy workloads, while the Quadro 3000M has stronger pixel throughput and texture processing per clock.

Clock behavior also diverges. The GT 645M has a base clock of 709 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, indicating a dynamic clocking scheme. The Quadro 3000M has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective data rate. The GT 645M memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The GT 645M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 3000M holds a 177.8% bandwidth advantage, which is critical for compute workloads like OpenCL.

API support also separates the two. The GT 645M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. The GT 645M therefore offers broader modern API compatibility.

Form factor and power draw differ as well. The GT 645M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 32 W TDP and no power connectors. The Quadro 3000M is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors. The Quadro 3000M draws more than double the power of the GT 645M. The bus interfaces reflect the form factors: the GT 645M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 3000M uses MXM-B (3.0).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M has an average benchmark score of 4411, compared to 3718 for the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M. The GT 645M leads by roughly 18.6%.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3718 against 2680 for the GT 645M, a 27.9% advantage.

Q: Does the GeForce GT 645M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GT 645M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 3000M has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each GPU?

A: The GT 645M has 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128 bit bus. The Quadro 3000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The GT 645M contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The Quadro 3000M contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 645M has 384 shading units, while the Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units. The GT 645M has 60% more.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GK107 (GT 645M) vs GF104 (Quadro 3000M)
• Architecture: Kepler (GT 645M) vs Fermi (Quadro 3000M)
• Generation: GeForce 600M (GT 645M) vs Quadro Fermi-M, x000M (Quadro 3000M)
• Process node: 28 nm (GT 645M) vs 40 nm (Quadro 3000M)
• Transistors: 1,270 million (GT 645M) vs 1,950 million (Quadro 3000M)
• Die size: 118 mm² (GT 645M) vs 332 mm² (Quadro 3000M)
• Transistor density: 10.8M per mm² (GT 645M) vs 5.9M per mm² (Quadro 3000M)
• Base clock: 709 MHz (GT 645M) vs not recorded (Quadro 3000M)
• Boost clock: 780 MHz (GT 645M) vs not recorded (Quadro 3000M)
• Memory clock: 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective (GT 645M) vs 625 MHz, 2.5 Gbps effective (Quadro 3000M)
• Memory type: DDR3 (GT 645M) vs GDDR5 (Quadro 3000M)
• Bus width: 128 bit (GT 645M) vs 256 bit (Quadro 3000M)
• Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s (GT 645M) vs 80.00 GB/s (Quadro 3000M)
• Shading units: 384 (GT 645M) vs 240 (Quadro 3000M)
• TMUs: 32 (GT 645M) vs 40 (Quadro 3000M)
• ROPs: 16 (GT 645M) vs 32 (Quadro 3000M)
• Pixel rate: 6.240 GPixel/s (GT 645M) vs 4.500 GPixel/s (Quadro 3000M)
• Texture rate: 24.96 GTexel/s (GT 645M) vs 18.00 GTexel/s (Quadro 3000M)
• FP32: 599.0 GFLOPS (GT 645M) vs 432.0 GFLOPS (Quadro 3000M)
• TDP: 32 W (GT 645M) vs 75 W (Quadro 3000M)
• Slot width: IGP (GT 645M) vs MXM Module (Quadro 3000M)
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (GT 645M) vs MXM-B 3.0 (Quadro 3000M)
• Vulkan: 1.2.175 (GT 645M) vs not recorded (Quadro 3000M)
• Release date: 2012-09-30 (GT 645M) vs 2011-02-21 (Quadro 3000M)
• Predecessor: GeForce 500M (GT 645M) vs Quadro FX Mobile (Quadro 3000M)
• Successor: GeForce 700M (GT 645M) vs Quadro Kepler-M (Quadro 3000M)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 3000M wins that test with a score of 3718 against 2680 for the GT 645M. The delta is 27.9% in favor of the Quadro 3000M. This is a substantial margin, and it highlights the Quadro 3000M's strength in compute-oriented workloads. The memory bandwidth advantage of 80.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s likely contributes heavily to this result, as OpenCL workloads often scale with memory throughput.

The GT 645M, however, posts wins in other recorded benchmarks that the Quadro 3000M does not participate in. The GT 645M scores 5679 in Geekbench Metal and 4875 in Geekbench Vulkan. These results cannot be compared directly to the Quadro 3000M because the Quadro 3000M has no recorded scores for those tests. The presence of these additional benchmarks in the GT 645M's record is itself a differentiator: the database shows Vulkan support for the GT 645M and no Vulkan support for the Quadro 3000M.

The average benchmark scores tell a complementary story. The GT 645M averages 4411 across all tests, while the Quadro 3000M averages 3718 from its single OpenCL result. The GT 645M's average is 18.6% higher, but this is partly a function of the different test sets. The OpenCL head-to-head remains the only apples-to-apples comparison available.

The nearest rival data adds context for each card's standing. The GT 645M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M260, which scores 4499 and sits 1.9% above it. The GeForce 930M scores 4388, 0.5% below the GT 645M. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 4360, 1.2% below. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 appears in the rival list with a score of 4335, 1.8% below the GT 645M, an unusual grouping that reflects the average score metric rather than generational placement. The Quadro 3000M's rivals cluster tightly around its 3718 average: the GeForce GT 740M scores 3717 (0% delta), the GeForce GT 635M scores 3740 (0.6% above), the GeForce 825M scores 3694 (0.6% below), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649 (1.9% below). These tight groupings indicate that both cards sit in highly competitive performance bands, where a few percentage points separate adjacent products.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the GT 645M holds the theoretical edge. Its FP32 rating is 599.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 3000M is rated at 432.0 GFLOPS. The GT 645M also leads in pixel rate (6.240 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.96 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s). These numbers suggest the GT 645M should dominate in graphics rendering tasks, even though the Quadro 3000M wins the recorded OpenCL benchmark. The divergence between theoretical throughput and real-world OpenCL results underscores the importance of memory bandwidth and driver optimization in compute workloads.

The wins tally in the database reflects this split: the GT 645M records 0 wins, the Quadro 3000M records 1 win. That single win is the OpenCL test, and it is the only direct comparison recorded. Users should interpret the win count with the benchmark coverage in mind: the GT 645M has three recorded benchmarks, the Quadro 3000M has one. The GT 645M's additional Metal and Vulkan results are not mirrored for the Quadro 3000M, so no cross-comparison is possible for those workloads.