NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different architectural generations. The GT 745M, built on the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, targets the consumer GeForce 700M line, while the Quadro 3000M, based on the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, belongs to the professional Quadro Fermi-M lineup. Benchmark data shows the Quadro 3000M holds a narrow edge in the only directly comparable test, but the two cards occupy nearly identical performance percentiles relative to all GPUs, with the GT 745M at the 23rd percentile and the Quadro 3000M at the 22nd.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M has an average benchmark score of 3953, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has an average score of 3718. The GT 745M leads by approximately 6.3% based on average scores across all available benchmarks.

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

A: In the single head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the Quadro 3000M scores 3718 versus the GT 745M's 3580, giving the Quadro a 3.7% advantage (deltaPct of -3.7% from the GT 745M's perspective).

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro 3000M's GF104 chip contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the GT 745M's GK107 chip has 1,270 million transistors on a much smaller 118 mm² die. The GF104 has roughly 53.5% more transistors but a substantially larger die area.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: The GeForce GT 745M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for each GPU?

A: The GT 745M's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 with an average score of 3956 (0.1% higher), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 (0.1% higher). The Quadro 3000M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M at 3717 (0% delta), with the GeForce GT 635M at 3740 being 0.6% higher.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro 3000M offers 80.00 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the GT 745M provides 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The Quadro delivers 25% more memory bandwidth, despite running at a lower effective memory speed of 2.5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile GPUs is substantial. The GT 745M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro 3000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is significant: the 28 nm node allows the GT 745M to pack 1,270 million transistors into a compact 118 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the Quadro 3000M's GF104 die spans 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors, yielding a much lower density of 5.9 million per mm².

The shading unit configuration diverges notably. The GT 745M features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro 3000M counters with 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the Quadro 3000M has more TMUs and double the ROPs. This configuration suggests the Quadro may handle texture-heavy and fill-rate-bound workloads differently, even though its raw compute is similar.

Memory subsystems differ in bus width and speed. The GT 745M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface with memory clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 3000M also has 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a 256-bit bus, with memory at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), producing 80.00 GB/s. The wider bus in the Quadro compensates for its lower memory clock.

Clock rates for both GPUs are not specified in the data, but the computed rates tell a story. The GT 745M achieves a pixel rate of 4.392 GPixel/s and texture rate of 17.57 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 3000M reaches 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) is nearly identical, with the GT 745M at 421.6 GFLOPS and the Quadro at 432.0 GFLOPS, a difference of only 2.5%.

The power and form factor differences are clear. The GT 745M is rated at 45 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width, while the Quadro 3000M draws 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width. The Quadro's bus interface is MXM-B (3.0), whereas the GT 745M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Neither GPU lists power connectors, and both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. For raw compute in synthetic benchmarks, the Quadro 3000M wins the only direct comparison, scoring 3718 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GT 745M's 3580, a margin of 3.7%. However, the GT 745M has a higher average benchmark score across all its tested workloads (3953 versus 3718), driven largely by its strong Geekbench Vulkan score of 5502 and Metal score of 2777, which the Quadro has no comparable data for. The GT 745M also sits at the 23rd percentile versus the Quadro's 22nd, indicating essentially equivalent standing among all GPUs.

The GT 745M is the better choice for users who need modern API support. It offers Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GT 745M's Kepler architecture also delivers higher transistor density and lower power consumption (45 W versus 75 W), making it more suitable for thinner, lower-power notebook designs.

The Quadro 3000M, despite being older in architecture, brings professional-grade characteristics. Its 256-bit memory bus provides 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, 25% more than the GT 745M's 64.00 GB/s, which can matter for memory-intensive professional workloads. It also has double the ROPs (32 versus 16), potentially improving fill-rate-bound scenarios. However, its 40 nm process and higher 75 W TDP mean it requires more power and produces more heat, reflected in its MXM Module form factor.

For users prioritizing API compatibility and efficiency, the GT 745M is the clear winner. For those who need maximum memory bandwidth and rasterization throughput in a professional mobile workstation context, the Quadro 3000M offers advantages, though its compute advantage is marginal at just 2.5% in FP32 and 3.7% in the OpenCL benchmark.

Specification Differences

The following tables highlight the key specification differences between the two GPUs:

| Specification | GeForce GT 745M | Quadro 3000M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Chip | GK107 | GF104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 332 mm² |

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

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 240 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.392 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.57 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 421.6 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) |

| Release Date | 2013-03-31 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 3953 | 3718 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 23 | 22 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Quadro 3000M outperforms the GT 745M. The Quadro scores 3718, while the GT 745M scores 3580, a delta of -3.7% from the GT 745M's perspective. This result aligns with the FP32 compute figures, where the Quadro's 432.0 GFLOPS edges out the GT 745M's 421.6 GFLOPS, a 2.5% difference. The Quadro also leads in pixel rate (4.500 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s) and texture rate (18.00 GTexel/s versus 17.57 GTexel/s), though these margins are all under 3%.

The GT 745M's benchmark suite includes three tests: Geekbench Metal at 2777, Geekbench OpenCL at 3580, and Geekbench Vulkan at 5502. The Vulkan score is notably strong, nearly 54% higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting the Kepler architecture scales well with modern API implementations. The Quadro 3000M only has a Geekbench OpenCL result of 3718, with no Metal or Vulkan scores available, which limits direct comparison.

When examining average benchmark scores, the GT 745M's overall figure of 3953 is 6.3% higher than the Quadro's 3718. This average, however, includes the GT 745M's Vulkan score, which has no counterpart on the Quadro side. If we isolate the OpenCL results, the Quadro leads, but the GT 745M's broader API support gives it a higher aggregate standing.

The nearest rival data reinforces the close overall performance. The GT 745M's rivals (AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956, GeForce 830M at 3957, Quadro K2000 at 3964, Quadro 2000D at 3930) all fall within a 0.9% range of its score. Similarly, the Quadro 3000M's rivals (GeForce GT 740M at 3717, GeForce GT 635M at 3740, GeForce 825M at 3694, Radeon HD 6770 at 3649) span a 2.5% range. Both cards sit comfortably within their respective performance clusters, with no significant outlier advantages.

The Quadro 3000M's wins in pixel rate and ROP count (32 versus 16) suggest it may perform relatively better in tasks that require heavy pixel processing, despite its older Fermi architecture. Conversely, the GT 745M's higher shading unit count (384 versus 240) and modern Kepler design likely benefit shader-heavy workloads, though the benchmark data does not directly test this. The memory bandwidth difference (80.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s) favors the Quadro, which could prove decisive in bandwidth-limited scenarios. Ultimately, the data shows two GPUs separated by margins of less than 4% in compute tasks, with architectural trade-offs that may tip the scales depending on workload characteristics.