NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a split personality between these two Kepler-based NVIDIA parts. The GeForce GT 645M wins two of the three recorded tests, but the Quadro K2000 takes the most lopsided victory of the entire comparison.

In Geekbench Metal, the GeForce GT 645M posts a score of 5679 against the Quadro K2000's 3630. That is a 56.4% advantage, the largest margin in any test. The Metal API clearly favors the consumer-oriented GeForce, a pattern that suggests driver optimization priorities differ sharply between the two product lines.

The Geekbench OpenCL test flips the narrative completely. Here the Quadro K2000 scores 4071, which is 34.2% ahead of the GT 645M's 2680. This is the Quadro's only win, but it is substantial. OpenCL compute workloads are the traditional domain of workstation cards, and the data confirms the K2000's strength in that area.

The Geekbench Vulkan test lands in between. The GT 645M scores 4875 while the K2000 manages 4191. The GeForce leads by 16.3%, a comfortable but not overwhelming gap. Vulkan is a relatively modern API for both cards, and the GT 645M's newer consumer driver stack appears to extract more performance from it.

Averaging the three tests, the GT 645M reaches 4411 points against the K2000's 3964. That is an 11.3% overall lead for the GeForce, though the OpenCL result shows the Quadro remains highly competitive in specific workloads. The win tally stands at 2-1 in favor of the GT 645M, but the OpenCL margin is significant enough that the overall story is not one-sided.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon. The GK107 chip powers both cards, built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 1,270 million transistors packed into a 118 mm² die. Transistor density measures 10.8M per square millimeter for both. The shading unit count is identical at 384, with 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The memory subsystem is where the specifications diverge meaningfully. The GT 645M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2000 also has 2 GB but uses GDDR5, and the same 128-bit bus width yields 64.00 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth, a critical difference for memory-bound workloads. The K2000's memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, while the GT 645M's memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Clock speeds tell a related story. The GT 645M has a base clock of 709 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz. The K2000's base and boost clocks are not listed, but its fill rates reveal the practical impact of its configuration. Pixel rate for the K2000 is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s for the GT 645M. Texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 24.96 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 732.7 GFLOPS versus 599.0 GFLOPS. The K2000 is roughly 22% faster in raw compute throughput.

Power characteristics differ as well. The GT 645M is rated at 32 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width, meaning it is designed for integration into portable devices. The K2000 is a 51 W single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GT 645M connects via PCIe 3.0 x16 while the K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also reflect their different missions: the GT 645M's outputs are "portable device dependent," while the K2000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Release timing places the GT 645M in September 2012 and the K2000 in February 2013. The GT 645M succeeds the GeForce 500M series and is succeeded by the GeForce 700M. The K2000 succeeds Quadro Fermi and is succeeded by Quadro Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro K2000. Its FP32 throughput is 732.7 GFLOPS compared to 599.0 GFLOPS for the GT 645M, a difference of roughly 22%. Pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 24.96 GTexel/s.

Q: Why does the GT 645M win the Metal benchmark by such a large margin?

A: The GeForce scores 5679 in Geekbench Metal versus 3630 for the Quadro, a 56.4% gap. This likely reflects driver maturity for consumer APIs on the GeForce line, while the Quadro's optimization focus is on workstation compute workloads like OpenCL.

Q: Is the Quadro K2000's memory significantly faster?

A: Yes. The K2000 uses GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, while the GT 645M uses DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s. Both have 2 GB capacity and a 128-bit bus, so the memory type is the sole cause of the 2.2x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Do these cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, identically. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. This is expected since both use the GK107 chip and Kepler architecture.

Q: What are the physical differences between the two cards?

A: The GT 645M is an IGP with a 32 W TDP designed for portable devices, while the K2000 is a 51 W single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The K2000 has dedicated display outputs; the GT 645M's are dependent on the host device.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to close rivals?

A: The GT 645M averages 4411, sitting 0.5% above the GeForce 930M and 1.2% above the Intel Iris Pro 5200, while trailing the Radeon R7 M260 by 1.9%. The K2000 averages 3964, which is 0.2% above the GeForce 830M and Radeon R5 M420, and 0.3% above the GeForce GT 745M.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload priority. The GeForce GT 645M is the better all-round performer in the benchmark suite, winning two of three tests and holding an 11.3% average score advantage. Its Metal and Vulkan results are meaningfully stronger, with the Metal margin being particularly decisive at 56.4%.

The Quadro K2000 is the specialized option. Its OpenCL score of 4071 exceeds the GT 645M by 34.2%, and its memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is critical for compute tasks that saturate memory. Its raw FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS also outclasses the GeForce. For users running OpenCL-heavy professional applications, the K2000 is the data-backed choice.

The GT 645M's overall percentile rank is 26 versus 24 for the K2000, reinforcing the average score gap. The database places the GT 645M among rivals like the GeForce 930M and Radeon R7 M260, while the K2000 sits with the GeForce 830M and Radeon R5 M420. Both cards occupy the lower-middle tier of the GPU landscape, but the GeForce edges ahead in general-purpose metrics.

The K2000's launch MSRP was 599 USD, reflecting its professional positioning despite its lower average benchmark score.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |

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

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 6.240 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.96 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 599.0 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 32 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 202 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release Date | September 2012 | February 2013 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500M | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | GeForce 700M | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

Shared characteristics include the GK107 chip, Kepler architecture, 28 nm process, 1,270 million transistors, 118 mm² die size, 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 2 GB memory capacity, and 128-bit memory bus. Both are end-of-life products with identical API support.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GT 645M dominates API-specific modern workloads. Its Metal score of 5679 is the highest recorded for either card in any test, and its Vulkan score of 4875 also leads. These results suggest the GT 645M is the stronger choice for graphics-oriented tasks using contemporary APIs. The 56.4% Metal margin is the single biggest performance gap in the entire comparison, making this an unambiguous victory for the GeForce in that domain.

The GT 645M also wins on efficiency metrics. Its 32 W TDP is significantly lower than the K2000's 51 W, and it requires no power connectors. For portable or power-constrained systems, the GeForce is clearly the more suitable option. Its IGP form factor and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also indicate a more modern integration path.

The Quadro K2000 wins decisively in compute throughput and memory bandwidth. The OpenCL score of 4071 represents a 34.2% advantage, and the 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the GeForce's 28.80 GB/s. Raw compute figures follow suit: 732.7 GFLOPS FP32, 7.632 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 30.53 GTexel/s texture rate all exceed the GT 645M's numbers. For OpenCL-heavy professional workloads, the K2000 is the data-backed choice.

The K2000 also wins on connectivity and physical configurability. It offers dedicated DVI and DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a defined 202 mm length and 111 mm height. The GT 645M's display outputs are dependent on the host device, making it unsuitable for standalone workstation configurations.

The practical split is straightforward: the GT 645M for general graphics and modern API performance with low power draw, the K2000 for compute-heavy professional workloads where memory bandwidth and OpenCL performance are paramount. The benchmark data does not crown a single overall winner, but rather identifies two distinct usage profiles where each card excels.