NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M compare to the GeForce GT 745M in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4621, while the GeForce GT 745M trails at 3953. The M3000M also sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 745M's 23rd percentile.

Q: Which GPU offers better compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M3000M dominates in OpenCL, scoring 16646 versus the GT 745M's 3580. That is a 365% advantage for the M3000M, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0 on the GM204 chip, while the GeForce GT 745M uses the older Kepler architecture on the GK107 chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards offer?

A: The Quadro M3000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce GT 745M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes differ?

A: The Quadro M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the GeForce GT 745M has 1,270 million transistors on a much smaller 118 mm² die. This reflects the M3000M's significantly more complex design.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The Quadro M3000M reaches 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s, while the GeForce GT 745M manages only 4.392 GPixel/s and 17.57 GTexel/s. The M3000M is roughly 6.7 times faster in pixel rate and 3.4 times faster in texture rate.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The Quadro M3000M wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the real story is where each card's strengths matter most.

The Quadro M3000M is the workstation-class option. Its 4 GB frame buffer, 256-bit memory bus, and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the obvious pick for professional visualization, CAD work, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks. Its OpenCL score of 16646 against the GT 745M's 3580 shows a massive gap in compute throughput. The M3000M also excels in Vulkan workloads, posting 16668 versus 5502, a 202.9% advantage. For anyone running rendering, simulation, or other professional applications, the M3000M is the only reasonable choice between these two.

The GeForce GT 745M, by contrast, is a lower-power consumer part. Its 45 W TDP versus the M3000M's 75 W means it fits into thinner, lighter laptops with less aggressive cooling. It can handle older or lighter DirectX titles and general desktop use, but its 2 GB memory and 128-bit bus limit its ceiling. The 745M has no wins in the recorded benchmark suite, but its lower power draw and integrated form factor (IGP slot width) make it suitable for mainstream notebooks where battery life and thermals take priority over raw performance.

Neither card is a current-generation product. Both are end-of-life, but the M3000M is clearly the stronger performer across every metric in the database. The GT 745M's appeal is purely in its lower power envelope and compatibility with more portable chassis designs.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro M3000M and GeForce GT 745M come from different architectural generations, and that explains most of their performance gap.

The M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0, built on the GM204 chip. This architecture introduced improved memory compression, better power efficiency per clock, and enhanced DirectX 12 feature support. It features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The chip packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a large, high-end chip designed for serious workloads.

The GeForce GT 745M uses the older Kepler architecture on the GK107 chip. Kepler was designed for efficiency, but it lacks several of Maxwell's refinements. The 745M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its 1,270 million transistors sit on a 118 mm² die, with a density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The smaller, simpler chip is inherently less capable, but it also consumes less power.

API support differs as well. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 745M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The M3000M's newer architecture and higher feature level make it more future-proof for modern APIs.

The FP32 compute throughput tells the same story: the M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS, while the GT 745M manages only 421.6 GFLOPS. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional shader-based rendering.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category.

The M3000M has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost clock of 924 MHz, while the GT 745M's core clocks are not recorded in the database. Memory clocks also differ: the M3000M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), and the GT 745M at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bus width are major differentiators. The M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface, while the GT 745M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface. This yields bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, a 2.5x gap in favor of the M3000M.

Shader resources scale similarly. The M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GT 745M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Every resource is doubled or more on the M3000M.

Power and physical design also diverge. The M3000M has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the GT 745M has a 45 W TDP and an IGP slot width. The M3000M requires no external power connectors, and the 745M's connector situation is not specified. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The release dates are separated by roughly two years: the GT 745M launched in 2013, and the M3000M in 2015. The 745M's predecessor is the GeForce 600M series, and its successor is the GeForce 800M. The M3000M's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. Neither card has a launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes two tests, and the Quadro M3000M wins both by wide margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16646 against the GT 745M's 3580. The delta is 365% in favor of the M3000M. This is the largest gap in any recorded test and reflects the M3000M's far superior compute resources: 1024 shading units versus 384, and 1.892 TFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS. For OpenCL workloads such as video encoding, physics simulation, or machine learning inference, the M3000M is in a different class entirely.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the M3000M scores 16668 versus 5502 for the GT 745M, a 202.9% advantage. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that benefits from raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the M3000M. The M3000M's 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and 64 TMUs give it a substantial edge in draw call processing and texture-heavy scenes.

The GT 745M has no wins in the recorded head-to-head tests. Its only benchmark entries are Geekbench Metal (2777), OpenCL (3580), and Vulkan (5502), and it does not appear in the DirectX or Passmark suites where the M3000M has data. The M3000M's additional benchmark results include Passmark G3D at 5543, Passmark GPU Compute at 2139, and DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores of 98, 26, 42, and 23 respectively.

The M3000M's nearest rivals in the database include the GTX 970M (average score 4628, just 0.1% higher) and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, 0.8% higher). The GT 745M's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.1% higher) and the GeForce 830M (3957, 0.1% higher). This places the M3000M in a significantly higher performance tier, roughly 17% above the GT 745M in average benchmark score.

The conclusion from the recorded data is unambiguous: the Quadro M3000M outperforms the GeForce GT 745M in every measured category, with particularly large leads in compute and modern API workloads.