NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The Quadro K2000D posts a score of 3919, while the GT 745M trails at 3580. That works out to an 8.7% deficit for the GT 745M, a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput. The Quadro takes the sole win in this head-to-head, and the data shows no test where the GT 745M comes out ahead.

Contextualizing those scores against their nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The Quadro K2000D's 3919 average benchmark score puts it within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930) and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898). It also sits 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883). The GT 745M, meanwhile, averages 3953 across its benchmark suite, which is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956) and 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957). The delta between the two cards in aggregate is slight — the GT 745M's average of 3953 versus the Quadro's 3919 — but the single OpenCL run tells a different story.

That discrepancy is worth parsing. The GT 745M's average benchmark score of 3953 is inflated by its Geekbench Vulkan result of 5502 and its Metal score of 2777, neither of which the Quadro K2000D has a recorded result for. When both cards run the same OpenCL workload, the Quadro is clearly faster. The GT 745M's OpenCL score of 3580 is its lowest recorded benchmark, while the Quadro's 3919 is its only recorded result. In terms of percentile ranking, both cards sit at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating they occupy essentially the same performance tier despite the Quadro's edge in the one directly comparable test.

The nearest-rival data for the GT 745M shows its average score of 3953 is a hair above the Quadro K2000's 3964 (a 0.3% gap) and the Quadro 2000D's 3930 (a 0.6% gap). For the Quadro K2000D, its 3919 average is 0.3% below the Quadro 2000D and 0.5% above the Quadro 2000. These are all tightly clustered results, which suggests that in real-world OpenCL compute, the two cards in question are near-peers, with the Quadro holding a genuine but modest advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct OpenCL benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins decisively, scoring 3919 against the GeForce GT 745M's 3580, a margin of 8.7%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GT 745M has a higher average benchmark score of 3953 across its three recorded tests, while the Quadro K2000D averages 3919 from a single OpenCL result. The difference is less than 1%.

Q: Are both GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the GeForce GT 745M and the Quadro K2000D sit at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier.

Q: What explains the GT 745M's higher average score despite losing the OpenCL test?

A: The GT 745M's average includes a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5502 and a Metal score of 2777, both of which are higher than its OpenCL result. The Quadro K2000D only has an OpenCL score of 3919 recorded.

Q: How does the Quadro K2000D fare against its direct predecessor or successors?

A: The Quadro K2000D's predecessor is listed as Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. Its average score of 3919 is 0.3% below the Quadro 2000D and 0.5% above the Quadro 2000.

Q: What do the nearest rival deltas indicate about the GT 745M's competitive position?

A: The GT 745M's average score of 3953 puts it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M420 and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000, showing it is competitive with low-end GPUs from the same era.

Architecture Differences

Both the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are built on the same fundamental architecture. They share the GK107 chip, which is part of NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, and both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. The transistor count is identical at 1,270 million, and the die size is the same at 118 mm², yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm² for both.

The shading and texture hardware is also identical. Both GPUs feature 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their Kepler-generation design. The memory subsystem is a match as well: 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz and 4 Gbps effective, producing a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s.

Where the architecture starts to diverge is in the clock-dependent throughput figures. The Quadro K2000D achieves a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s, while the GT 745M manages only 4.392 GPixel/s and 17.57 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is similarly lopsided: the Quadro delivers 732.7 GFLOPS, versus the GT 745M's 421.6 GFLOPS. Since the core counts and memory are identical, these differences must stem from higher clock speeds on the Quadro, though neither card's base nor boost clock is listed in the data.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, so API feature parity holds. The GT 745M is listed as having a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro K2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This is a notable architectural distinction, though the practical impact on compute performance is likely limited given the cards' modest throughput. The GT 745M is an integrated graphics product (IGP) with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the Quadro K2000D is a single-slot add-in card with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several concrete differences between the two cards beyond their benchmark scores. The most striking is the power envelope: the GT 745M is rated at 45 W TDP, while the Quadro K2000D draws 51 W. The Quadro also carries a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the GT 745M has no suggested PSU listed. The GT 745M uses no power connectors, and the Quadro likewise has none, drawing all power from the PCIe slot.

Form factor and connectivity set them apart. The GT 745M is an integrated graphics processor with a slot width of "IGP," meaning it is soldered onto a motherboard or laptop board. The Quadro K2000D is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GT 745M's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented design, while the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for desktop workstation use.

The bus interfaces differ as noted: the GT 745M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K2000D is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Memory specifications are identical — 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth — as are the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The transistor count, die size, and process node are all the same.

The production status is end-of-life for both, but their release dates differ slightly. The Quadro K2000D launched on 2013-02-28, while the GT 745M followed on 2013-03-31. Their generational lineages also diverge: the GT 745M belongs to the GeForce 700M series, with the GeForce 600M as predecessor and GeForce 800M as successor. The Quadro K2000D is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, with Quadro Fermi as predecessor and Quadro Maxwell as successor. The Quadro K2000D has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GT 745M has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner in the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D. In the only directly comparable benchmark, the OpenCL test, the Quadro beats the GT 745M by 8.7% — a substantial margin for two GPUs built on the same chip with identical core counts and memory. The Quadro's raw throughput figures reinforce this: its FP32 compute of 732.7 GFLOPS is 73.7% higher than the GT 745M's 421.6 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s dwarf the GT 745M's 4.392 GPixel/s and 17.57 GTexel/s.

Who should pick the Quadro K2000D? Anyone whose workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, where the Quadro's advantage is measurable. Its single-slot desktop form factor, dual DVI and mini-DisplayPort outputs, and 250 W suggested PSU make it a straightforward drop-in for a workstation. The 599 USD launch MSRP positions it as a professional card, and its 51 W TDP is modest for a desktop GPU.

Who should pick the GeForce GT 745M? The case is less about raw performance and more about context. Its average benchmark score of 3953 is actually higher than the Quadro's 3919, buoyed by strong Vulkan (5502) and Metal (2777) results that the Quadro cannot match because it has no recorded scores in those tests. The GT 745M's 45 W TDP is lower, and as an integrated part with PCIe 3.0, it suits a portable device where discrete expansion is impossible. It also has no launch MSRP, reflecting its role as an OEM component rather than a retail product.

For pure compute throughput in a desktop workstation, the Quadro K2000D is the data-backed choice. For a mobile or integrated solution where Vulkan and Metal performance matter, the GT 745M holds its own. Both sit at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, so neither is a performance champion — but the Quadro's edge in OpenCL and its superior clock-derived rates make it the stronger of the two in the workloads where they directly compete.