NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M scores 2,680 points. That is an 85.8% advantage for the Quadro 4000, a massive gap that places these two cards in entirely different performance classes despite their similar naming conventions.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 4,979. Its closest rivals are tightly grouped: the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4,998 (0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5,018 (0.8% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4,931 (1.0% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB scores 4,970 (0.2% behind). The Quadro 4000 is essentially neck-and-neck with a modern RTX-class card in this OpenCL workload, which highlights how strong its compute throughput remains even a decade and a half after launch.

The GT 645M, by contrast, sits at the 26th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 4,411 across three tests. Its OpenCL score of 2,680 is its weakest result, while its Geekbench Metal score reaches 5,679 and its Vulkan score hits 4,875. The closest rivals to the GT 645M's average include the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4,388 (0.5% behind), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at 4,360 (1.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4,335 (1.8% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4,499 (1.9% ahead). Interestingly, the GT 645M's average score is dragged down by that poor OpenCL result; its Metal and Vulkan scores are substantially stronger and would rank much higher if considered alone.

The head-to-head comparison in OpenCL tells a clear story: the Quadro 4000 wins the only direct benchmark both cards share. But the GT 645M is not without merit in other API tests, which the database records. The Quadro 4000 has no Metal or Vulkan scores on file, so the GT 645M's strengths in those areas go uncontested here.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has an average benchmark score of 4,979, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M's average of 4,411. The Quadro 4000 also holds the 29th percentile rank versus the GT 645M's 26th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro 4000 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 versus the GT 645M's 2,680 in Geekbench OpenCL, an 85.8% advantage. This is the only benchmark where both cards were measured directly.

Q: Does the GT 645M win any benchmark against the Quadro 4000?

A: In the head-to-head benchmark data, the Quadro 4000 wins 1 test and the GT 645M wins 0. However, the GT 645M has recorded scores in Metal and Vulkan tests where the Quadro 4000 has no data, so those APIs are not directly comparable.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Quadro 4000 in the database?

A: The nearest rivals by average score are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB at 4,970 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4,998 (0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5,018 (0.8% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4,931 (1.0% behind).

Q: What are the closest rivals to the GT 645M in the database?

A: The nearest rivals by average score are the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4,388 (0.5% behind), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at 4,360 (1.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4,335 (1.8% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4,499 (1.9% ahead).

Q: Which card has better API support for modern graphics workloads?

A: The GT 645M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing generations. The Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GT 645M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is significant: the GT 645M packs 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Quadro 4000 has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9M per mm².

The transistor count difference is notable. The Quadro 4000 has nearly 2.5 times more transistors than the GT 645M, but those transistors are spread across a much larger and older process. The GT 645M's newer process allows for a far more efficient design in terms of density, though the Quadro 4000's raw transistor budget is far larger.

In terms of compute resources, the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GT 645M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, but only 16 ROPs. The GT 645M has more shading units, which helps its raw shader throughput, but the Quadro 4000 has double the ROPs, which benefits pixel fill rate and certain rendering workloads.

The memory architectures differ fundamentally. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 645M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering just 28.80 GB/s. This is a massive bandwidth disparity, and it likely explains the Quadro 4000's dominant OpenCL performance, as many compute workloads are memory-bandwidth-bound.

The power characteristics reflect the architectural divide. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector plus a 300 W suggested PSU. The GT 645M has a TDP of only 32 W, needs no power connectors, and is listed as an integrated graphics product (IGP) with dimensions marked as portable-device dependent. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card with a length of 241 mm and a height of 111 mm, while the GT 645M has no listed physical dimensions, consistent with its mobile or integrated positioning.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 709 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.600 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.20 GTexel/s | 24.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 486.4 GFLOPS | 599.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 142 W | 32 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2010-11-01 | 2012-09-30 |

The specifications reveal a clear trade-off. The GT 645M has higher shading unit count, higher FP32 throughput, and a higher texture rate, but it is crippled by its narrow memory bus and slow DDR3 memory. The Quadro 4000 has a wider bus, faster GDDR5, and double the ROPs, which gives it a commanding lead in memory bandwidth and pixel rate.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4,979 versus the GT 645M's 2,680 represents an 85.8% advantage, and its memory bandwidth of 89.86 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s is a threefold gap that no amount of shading units can overcome. The Quadro 4000 also holds a higher percentile rank (29th versus 26th) and a higher average benchmark score (4,979 versus 4,411).

However, the GT 645M is not without its own strengths. Its Metal score of 5,679 and Vulkan score of 4,875 are both higher than the Quadro 4000's OpenCL score, and it consumes only 32 W compared to the Quadro 4000's 142 W. For a portable or low-power system, the GT 645M is the only viable option, as the Quadro 4000 is a full-length, single-slot card requiring external power. The GT 645M is listed as an IGP with no power connectors, making it suitable for laptops or compact devices where the Quadro 4000 physically cannot fit.

The choice depends entirely on the use case. For desktop workstations with power to spare, the Quadro 4000 is the superior performer in compute tasks, and its GDDR5 memory and wide bus make it better suited for bandwidth-intensive workloads. For mobile or low-power environments, the GT 645M offers a respectable feature set with Vulkan support and better efficiency, though its OpenCL performance lags far behind.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in: OpenCL compute workloads, with an 85.8% lead over the GT 645M. Memory-bandwidth-bound tasks favor the Quadro 4000 heavily due to its 89.86 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s. Pixel fill rate is also in the Quadro's favor at 7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, thanks to its 32 ROPs versus 16. The Quadro 4000 also has a higher average benchmark score (4,979 vs. 4,411) and a higher percentile rank (29th vs. 26th). It supports dual DisplayPort outputs and DVI, making it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M wins in: Power efficiency, with a 32 W TDP versus 142 W, and no external power connectors required. Shader-heavy workloads may favor the GT 645M, as it has 384 shading units versus 256, and its FP32 throughput of 599.0 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS. Texture rate is also higher at 24.96 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. The GT 645M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro 4000 lacks entirely, and its Metal score of 5,679 and Vulkan score of 4,875 demonstrate capability in those modern APIs. It uses PCIe 3.0 x16 versus the Quadro 4000's PCIe 2.0 x16, and its portable-device-dependent form factor means it can fit in systems where a full-length card cannot.

The database records one head-to-head win for the Quadro 4000 and zero for the GT 645M, but those results only cover OpenCL. In Metal and Vulkan, the GT 645M has recorded scores that the Quadro 4000 cannot match for the simple reason that no data exists for the Quadro in those APIs. For a builder prioritizing compute density and memory bandwidth in a desktop workstation, the Quadro 4000 is the clear choice. For a builder prioritizing low power draw, modern API support, and mobile compatibility, the GT 645M holds the edge.