NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M holds a narrow edge with an average benchmark score of 4411, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M trails at 4151. The difference is roughly 6.3%, placing both cards in the same performance tier (26th vs. 25th percentile among all GPUs).

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The GT 645M dominates the Metal workload, scoring 5679 against the Quadro K2100M’s 3524. That is a 61.2% advantage for the GeForce part, making it the largest single-test gap between the two.

Q: Where does the Quadro K2100M take the lead?

A: The Quadro wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, posting 4587 versus the GT 645M’s 2680. This represents a 41.6% swing in favor of the Quadro, highlighting its strength in compute-oriented workloads.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture and are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. They also share identical API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the GT 645M uses DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K2100M uses GDDR5 at 48.13 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory bandwidth is 67% higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units and 48 TMUs, compared to the GT 645M’s 384 shading units and 32 TMUs. The Quadro also delivers higher pixel and texture rates: 8.004 GPixel/s vs. 6.240 GPixel/s, and 32.02 GTexel/s vs. 24.96 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Kepler architecture and TSMC’s 28 nm process node, but their underlying chips differ substantially. The GT 645M uses the GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Quadro K2100M employs the larger GK106S chip, packing 2,540 million transistors into 221 mm² for a density of 11.5M per mm². That is double the transistor count on nearly double the die area.

The shading resources scale accordingly. The Quadro’s 576 shading units represent a 50% increase over the GT 645M’s 384, and its 48 TMUs compare to 32 on the GeForce part. Both keep 16 ROPs, but the Quadro’s higher clock-independent rates reflect its wider execution resources: 8.004 GPixel/s pixel fill and 32.02 GTexel/s texture fill versus 6.240 GPixel/s and 24.96 GTexel/s on the GT 645M.

Clock behavior also diverges. The GT 645M runs at 709 MHz base with a 780 MHz boost, while the Quadro K2100M is locked at 667 MHz for both base and boost. Despite the lower clock, the Quadro’s FP32 throughput reaches 768.4 GFLOPS versus 599.0 GFLOPS on the GT 645M, a 28% advantage driven by the extra shading hardware. Memory architecture differs as well: the GT 645M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) delivering 28.80 GB/s, whereas the Quadro uses GDDR5 at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for 48.13 GB/s.

Form factors separate the two further. The GT 645M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 32 W TDP, while the Quadro K2100M is an MXM module with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors. Both are end-of-life products, but the GT 645M launched on 2012-09-30 and the Quadro K2100M on 2013-07-22. The GT 645M’s predecessor is the GeForce 500M and successor the GeForce 700M; the Quadro’s lineage runs from Quadro Fermi-M to Quadro Maxwell-M.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 645M claims victory in two of the three head-to-head benchmarks, and its wins are not marginal. In Geekbench Metal, it outscores the Quadro by 61.2%, a dominant margin that suggests the GeForce part is substantially better optimized for Apple’s Metal API. The GT 645M also wins Geekbench Vulkan with 4875 versus 4343, a 12.2% advantage — a solid but less dramatic lead.

The Quadro K2100M’s single win comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it beats the GT 645M by 41.6%. That result aligns with the Quadro’s hardware profile: more shading units, higher FP32 throughput, and faster GDDR5 memory all contribute to compute-heavy workloads. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose GPU computing, and the Quadro’s 768.4 GFLOPS clearly outperforms the GT 645M’s 599.0 GFLOPS.

Use-case splitting follows the benchmark pattern. For graphics-API-specific workloads — particularly Metal and Vulkan — the GT 645M is the stronger choice. For OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro K2100M is clearly superior. The average scores (4411 vs. 4151) suggest the GT 645M has a slight overall edge, but the Quadro’s compute advantage could matter more in professional or scientific contexts where OpenCL is prevalent.

Specification Differences

The two cards share several specifications: 2 GB memory, 128-bit bus width, 16 ROPs, TSMC 28 nm process, and identical API support. Key differences outside those commonalities are listed below.

• Chip: GK107 (GT 645M) vs. GK106S (K2100M)
• Transistors: 1,270 million vs. 2,540 million
• Die Size: 118 mm² vs. 221 mm²
• Base Clock: 709 MHz vs. 667 MHz
• Boost Clock: 780 MHz vs. 667 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective vs. 752 MHz / 3 Gbps effective
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs. GDDR5
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs. 48.13 GB/s
• Shading Units: 384 vs. 576
• TMUs: 32 vs. 48
• Pixel Rate: 6.240 GPixel/s vs. 8.004 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 24.96 GTexel/s vs. 32.02 GTexel/s
• FP32: 599.0 GFLOPS vs. 768.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 32 W vs. 55 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs. MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs. MXM-A (3.0)
• Release Date: 2012-09-30 vs. 2013-07-22
• Predecessor: GeForce 500M vs. Quadro Fermi-M
• Successor: GeForce 700M vs. Quadro Maxwell-M

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test produces the most lopsided result in this comparison. The GT 645M scores 5679 against the Quadro’s 3524, a 61.2% difference. This is not a close contest; the GeForce part is in a different class for Metal workloads. Given that Metal is the primary graphics API on Apple platforms, the GT 645M would be the clear pick for macOS-oriented tasks.

The OpenCL test flips the script entirely. Here the Quadro K2100M scores 4587, while the GT 645M manages only 2680. The 41.6% gap in the Quadro’s favor is nearly as large as the Metal difference, just in the opposite direction. The Quadro’s extra shading units (576 vs. 384) and higher FP32 throughput (768.4 vs. 599.0 GFLOPS) likely drive this result, as OpenCL exercises raw compute capabilities more than graphics-specific paths.

The Vulkan test is the closest of the three. The GT 645M wins with 4875 versus 4343, a 12.2% margin. This is a meaningful but not overwhelming lead, indicating that both GPUs handle modern cross-platform graphics reasonably well, with the GeForce part holding a moderate edge. Overall, the GT 645M wins two benchmarks and the Quadro wins one, but the average scores (4411 vs. 4151) suggest the GeForce’s wins are slightly more impactful in aggregate.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload type. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M is the better choice for users prioritizing Metal or Vulkan graphics performance. Its 61.2% Metal lead and 12.2% Vulkan lead over the Quadro K2100M make it the stronger all-around graphics card for API-specific rendering tasks. Its lower TDP (32 W vs. 55 W) and IGP form factor also make it more suitable for power-constrained portable devices.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the pick for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 41.6% advantage in that benchmark stems from a fundamentally stronger compute platform: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, 768.4 GFLOPS FP32, and 48.13 GB/s GDDR5 bandwidth. For professionals running OpenCL-based applications, the Quadro’s architecture delivers meaningfully higher throughput.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The GT 645M’s average score of 4411 sits within 0.5% of the GeForce 930M (4388) and 1.2% of the Intel Iris Pro 5200 (4360), while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499) by 1.9%. The Quadro K2100M’s 4151 average is 0.4% behind the Radeon R5 M330 (4170), 1% behind the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193), but 1.4% ahead of the Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093) and 1.9% ahead of Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075). Both cards sit in the 25th-26th percentile of all GPUs, confirming they are entry-level performers by modern standards.

For a buyer choosing between these two specifically, the decision hinges on the dominant API in their workflow. Metal and Vulkan users should take the GT 645M; OpenCL users should take the Quadro K2100M. The GT 645M’s higher average score and two-of-three benchmark wins give it the overall edge, but the Quadro’s compute advantage is too large to ignore for OpenCL-heavy tasks. Neither card is a top performer, but each has a distinct role where it clearly outperforms the other.