GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they serve vastly different performance tiers. The data shows a decisive generational and architectural gap, with the Quadro M3000M delivering dominant results across all shared benchmark tests. While the GT 645M holds a slight edge in overall GPU percentile ranking, the M3000M’s raw compute and graphics scores paint a clear picture of a professional-class part outpacing an older entry-level chip.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided, with the Quadro M3000M winning both of the available comparative tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16646 against the GT 645M’s 2680, producing a delta of 521.1%. This is not a marginal victory; the M3000M delivers over six times the compute throughput in this API. The Vulkan test shows a similar, though slightly less extreme, margin: the M3000M posts 16668 versus 4875, a 241.9% advantage. Both scores place the M3000M in a completely different performance class, reflecting its larger chip, wider memory bus, and higher clock speeds.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The M3000M averages 4621 across all recorded tests, while the GT 645M averages 4411. Although the gap in average scores is only about 4.8%, this figure is skewed by the fact that the GT 645M has a Geekbench Metal score of 5679, a test the M3000M does not have data for. When isolating the shared OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the M3000M’s superiority is overwhelming. The percentile ranks are close, 27th for the M3000M versus 26th for the GT 645M, but this metric reflects the entire GPU landscape, where both parts sit near the bottom of the performance distribution.

In the Passmark suite, the M3000M shows a broad but uneven profile: it scores 26 in DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, 23 in DirectX 12, 98 in DirectX 9, 402 in G2D, 5543 in G3D, and 2139 in GPU Compute. These numbers indicate that its strength lies in legacy DirectX 9 workloads and general 3D rendering, while modern API performance is comparatively weaker. The GT 645M has no Passmark entries in the fact pack, so no direct comparison is possible for those tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark it shares with the GT 645M. Its 521.1% OpenCL lead makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like GPGPU acceleration, where raw FP32 throughput matters. Its 241.9% Vulkan advantage suggests it also handles modern graphics APIs far better. For any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, from scientific simulation to game rendering, the M3000M is the superior part.

The GT 645M, by contrast, has no wins in the head-to-head data. However, it does have a Geekbench Metal score of 5679, which is a benchmark the M3000M lacks. In the Metal API, the GT 645M demonstrates respectable performance relative to its own average, suggesting it may be adequate for macOS-specific applications that rely on that framework. Its lower TDP of 32 W versus the M3000M’s 75 W also makes it a more power-efficient option for thin-and-light laptops, where thermal headroom is limited.

In terms of direct competition, the M3000M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M (average score 4628, delta -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, -0.8%), indicating it sits just below upper-midrange gaming parts. The GT 645M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce 930M (4388, +0.5%) and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, +1.2%), placing it in the entry-level segment. Neither GPU is competitive with modern high-end parts, but the M3000M operates several tiers above the GT 645M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architecture generations and design philosophies. The Quadro M3000M is built on Maxwell 2.0 using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The GT 645M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with just 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, a density of 10.8M per mm². The M3000M’s die is over three times larger and contains more than four times the transistors.

Core configuration differences are substantial. The M3000M features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The GT 645M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the M3000M has roughly 2.7 times the shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs. The M3000M also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 645M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The memory subsystem is another major divergence. The M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 645M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, providing only 28.80 GB/s. This is a 5.6x difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads. The M3000M’s pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s, versus 6.240 GPixel/s and 24.96 GTexel/s for the GT 645M. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS for the M3000M against 599.0 GFLOPS for the GT 645M.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two parts, all taken directly from the fact pack:

• Chip: GM204 (M3000M) vs GK107 (GT 645M)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 vs Kepler
• Generation: Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) vs GeForce 600M
• Transistors: 5,200 million vs 1,270 million
• Die Size: 398 mm² vs 118 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.1M / mm² vs 10.8M / mm²
• Base Clock: 823 MHz vs 709 MHz
• Boost Clock: 924 MHz vs 780 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.4 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1024 vs 384
• TMUs: 64 vs 32
• ROPs: 32 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 29.57 GPixel/s vs 6.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 59.14 GTexel/s vs 24.96 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.892 TFLOPS vs 599.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W vs 32 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs IGP
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs 1.2.175
• Release Date: 2015-08-17 vs 2012-09-30
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler-M vs GeForce 500M
• Successor: Quadro Pascal-M vs GeForce 700M

Both parts share the same 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, "None" power connectors, "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, and lack of ray tracing and tensor cores. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Quadro M3000M is dramatically faster, scoring 16646 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GT 645M’s 2680, a 521.1% advantage.

Q: Does the GT 645M have any benchmark where it outperforms the M3000M?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the M3000M wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The GT 645M does have a Geekbench Metal score of 5679, but the M3000M has no Metal score recorded for comparison.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The M3000M offers 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The GT 645M provides 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, a 5.6x gap.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The M3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the GT 645M is rated at just 32 W. The GT 645M is significantly more power-efficient, making it suitable for thinner laptops.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 645M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both have OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The M3000M sits in the 27th percentile, while the GT 645M is in the 26th percentile. Both are in the lower quartile of the performance distribution, but the M3000M’s average benchmark score of 4621 is higher than the GT 645M’s 4411.