NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M scores 2,680 points. This gives the Quadro a 31.6% advantage, a substantial margin that dwarfs the differences seen between most close rivals in the same performance tier.

For context, the GT 645M sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 4,411 across three tests: Geekbench Metal at 5,679, Geekbench OpenCL at 2,680, and Geekbench Vulkan at 4,875. The Quadro K2000D, by contrast, has a 23rd percentile ranking and an average score of 3,919 from a single OpenCL run. The percentile gap is narrow, only 3 points, but the OpenCL delta is decisive.

Looking at the closest rivals for each card clarifies the competitive landscape. The GT 645M's nearest neighbor is the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, which averages 4,388, a difference of just 0.5%. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 trails by 1.2% at 4,360, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 comes in at 4,335, 1.8% behind. On the other side, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 leads the GT 645M by 1.9% with an average of 4,499. These are all sub-2% swings, meaning the GT 645M performs essentially at parity with a broad sweep of mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts.

The Quadro K2000D's rivals tell a similar story. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D averages 3,930, a 0.3% edge over the K2000D. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 sits at 3,898, 0.5% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M leads by 0.9% at 3,953, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics trails by 0.9% at 3,883. The K2000D is therefore locked in a tight cluster of workstation and mobile GPUs, all within roughly 1% of each other.

What stands out is that the GT 645M, despite its lower OpenCL score, has a higher overall average because its Metal and Vulkan results are significantly stronger. The Metal score of 5,679 is more than double its OpenCL figure, and the Vulkan score of 4,875 is 82% higher than OpenCL. This suggests that the GT 645M's compute performance varies heavily by API, whereas the Quadro K2000D's single recorded OpenCL result represents its only available data point.

The head-to-head OpenCL comparison is the sole direct benchmark where both cards appear. There are no shared Metal, Vulkan, or gaming tests in the database. That single 31.6% delta is the entire quantitative basis for direct comparison, so it carries outsized weight in the analysis.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K2000D wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the OpenCL test, by 31.6%. This is a clear victory in general-purpose compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, such as physics simulation, image processing, or scientific calculations. The score of 3,919 reflects a GPU that can sustain higher throughput in this specific API, likely due to its faster memory subsystem and higher clock-derived rates.

The GT 645M, however, wins in the broader metric of average benchmark score. Its 4,411 average exceeds the Quadro's 3,919 by 12.6%, driven entirely by the Metal and Vulkan results. For applications that use Apple's Metal API or the Vulkan API, the GT 645M is markedly stronger. The Metal score of 5,679 is 44.9% higher than the Quadro's OpenCL score, and the Vulkan score of 4,875 is 24.4% higher. This makes the GT 645M the better choice for cross-platform graphics workloads that leverage these modern APIs.

In terms of percentile ranking, the GT 645M also edges ahead at 26 versus 23. This means it sits higher in the overall distribution of all GPUs in the database, even though the direct OpenCL comparison favors the Quadro. The practical takeaway is that the GT 645M is more versatile across different API environments, while the Quadro K2000D is narrowly focused on OpenCL compute where it delivers a strong performance.

For gaming and consumer 3D applications, neither card has direct benchmark data in the database. However, the API support is identical for both: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means both cards can run the same modern titles at the API level, but the GT 645M's higher Vulkan score suggests better frame pacing in Vulkan-based games, while the Quadro's OpenCL advantage matters more for compute-heavy software rather than rasterization.

The Quadro K2000D wins for users who prioritize OpenCL compute throughput. The GT 645M wins for users who need strong Metal or Vulkan performance, or who want a higher average score across a mix of benchmarks. The data does not support a single "best" card; it depends entirely on the workload.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon: the GK107 chip, built on the Kepler architecture at TSMC's 28 nm process node. The transistor count is identical at 1,270 million, and the die size is the same at 118 mm². The transistor density works out to 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter for both. This is a case of two products derived from the same physical design, differentiated primarily by market positioning and memory configuration.

The shading unit count is identical: 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The core architecture is therefore the same in terms of raw execution resources. What differs is the clock behavior. The GT 645M has a base clock of 709 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz, while the Quadro K2000D has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database. This absence of clock data for the Quadro makes direct clock-to-clock comparisons impossible, but the derived rates tell the story.

The pixel rate for the GT 645M is 6.240 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 24.96 GTexel/s. The Quadro K2000D's pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s. These figures are 22.3% and 22.3% higher, respectively, than the GT 645M's numbers. The FP32 compute rating follows the same pattern: the GT 645M delivers 599.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro delivers 732.7 GFLOPS, a 22.3% advantage. This consistent 22.3% delta across all derived rates suggests the Quadro operates at a higher sustained clock, despite the missing clock fields.

Memory is where the two diverge most sharply. The GT 645M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 900 MHz and an effective data rate of 1800 Mbps. This yields a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz and an effective data rate of 4 Gbps. The bandwidth jumps to 64.00 GB/s, which is 122.2% higher than the GT 645M. This memory bandwidth gap is the single largest architectural difference between the two cards and likely explains the Quadro's OpenCL advantage.

The power envelope also differs. The GT 645M has a TDP of 32 W and is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors. The Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W, is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, but does specify a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro is physically larger, measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the GT 645M has no recorded dimensions, consistent with a mobile or embedded IGP.

The bus interface differs as well: the GT 645M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This means the GT 645M has a newer bus standard, though the practical impact on performance for a GPU of this class is minimal. Display outputs also differ: the GT 645M is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its outputs vary by laptop or mobile implementation, while the Quadro K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, making it suitable for fixed desktop workstation setups.

Both cards are end-of-life products. The GT 645M was released in late 2012, with a predecessor in the GeForce 500M series and a successor in the GeForce 700M series. The Quadro K2000D was released in early 2013, with a predecessor in the Quadro Fermi series and a successor in the Quadro Maxwell series. The GT 645M belongs to the GeForce 600M generation, while the Quadro K2000D belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M scores 2,680. The Quadro leads by 31.6%.

Q: Does the GT 645M have any benchmark advantage over the Quadro K2000D?

A: Yes. The GT 645M has higher scores in Geekbench Metal (5,679) and Geekbench Vulkan (4,875), and a higher average benchmark score of 4,411 versus 3,919 for the Quadro.

Q: Are the two GPUs based on the same chip?

A: Both use the GK107 chip on the Kepler architecture, with identical transistor counts of 1,270 million, identical die sizes of 118 mm², and identical shading unit counts of 384.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR5 memory, while the GT 645M has 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 memory. The Quadro's bandwidth is 122.2% higher.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The Quadro K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS, compared to 599.0 GFLOPS for the GT 645M, a 22.3% advantage.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GT 645M has a TDP of 32 W and is an IGP, while the Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W and is a single-slot card. The Quadro also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between two very different usage profiles. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the stronger card for OpenCL compute workloads, as evidenced by its 31.6% lead in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test. Its 64.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth, 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, and higher pixel and texture rates all point to a GPU that can push through data-heavy compute tasks more efficiently. This is the card for users running OpenCL-based professional software, where the 3,919 score is the relevant metric.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M, however, is the better all-round performer when considering the full benchmark suite. Its average score of 4,411 is 12.6% higher than the Quadro's 3,919, driven by exceptional Metal performance at 5,679 and strong Vulkan performance at 4,875. The GT 645M's lower TDP of 32 W makes it suitable for portable or power-constrained environments, and its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is a generation newer. For users who run a mix of modern graphics APIs, consumer applications, or any workload that leverages Metal or Vulkan, the GT 645M offers superior measured performance.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split: the GT 645M at the 26th percentile sits just above the Quadro at the 23rd percentile, but the difference is small. Neither card is a high-end performer; both sit in the lower quartile of all GPUs. The choice is not about absolute power but about matching the right tool to the right API and workload.

For a professional workstation with OpenCL-centric software, the Quadro K2000D's launch MSRP of 599 USD is a data point, but the performance advantage is what matters. For a mobile or compact system running varied consumer applications, the GT 645M's broader benchmark profile is more compelling. The data does not support a universal winner, only a workload-dependent one.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in the following recorded fields:

• Memory Type: GT 645M uses DDR3; Quadro K2000D uses GDDR5.
• Memory Clock: GT 645M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective; Quadro K2000D runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.
• Memory Bandwidth: GT 645M has 28.80 GB/s; Quadro K2000D has 64.00 GB/s.
• Base Clock: GT 645M has 709 MHz; Quadro K2000D has no recorded base clock.
• Boost Clock: GT 645M has 780 MHz; Quadro K2000D has no recorded boost clock.
• Pixel Rate: GT 645M is 6.240 GPixel/s; Quadro K2000D is 7.632 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: GT 645M is 24.96 GTexel/s; Quadro K2000D is 30.53 GTexel/s.
• FP32: GT 645M is 599.0 GFLOPS; Quadro K2000D is 732.7 GFLOPS.
• TDP: GT 645M is 32 W; Quadro K2000D is 51 W.
• Slot Width: GT 645M is IGP; Quadro K2000D is Single-slot.
• Suggested PSU: GT 645M has none; Quadro K2000D lists 250 W.
• Bus Interface: GT 645M is PCIe 3.0 x16; Quadro K2000D is PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: GT 645M is Portable Device Dependent; Quadro K2000D is 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.
• Dimensions: GT 645M has no recorded length, height, or width; Quadro K2000D is 202 mm long and 111 mm high.
• Generation: GT 645M is GeForce 600M; Quadro K2000D is Quadro Kepler (Kx000).
• Release Date: GT 645M released late 2012; Quadro K2000D released early 2013.
• Predecessor: GT 645M follows GeForce 500M; Quadro K2000D follows Quadro Fermi.
• Successor: GT 645M leads to GeForce 700M; Quadro K2000D leads to Quadro Maxwell.
• Launch MSRP: GT 645M has none; Quadro K2000D has 599 USD.
• Benchmark Scores: GT 645M has three scores (Metal 5,679, OpenCL 2,680, Vulkan 4,875); Quadro K2000D has one score (OpenCL 3,919).
• Average Benchmark Score: GT 645M is 4,411; Quadro K2000D is 3,919.
• Percentile: GT 645M is 26; Quadro K2000D is 23.

All other fields, including chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and API support, are identical between the two cards.