NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two benchmark tests where these GPUs face off directly: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The results split the win column evenly, with each card taking one test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4249 against 3580 for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M. That is a decisive 18.7% lead for the Quadro P400. This is the larger margin of the two tests, and it reflects the P400's stronger raw compute throughput in a general-purpose workload. The GT 745M's 3580 score puts it more than 660 points behind, which is a substantial gap in a synthetic workload that stresses shader and memory parallelism.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result. The GT 745M scores 5502, beating the Quadro P400's 5119 by 7%. This is a narrower margin than the OpenCL gap, but it is still a clear victory for the older mobile part. The Vulkan workload favors the GT 745M's architecture in ways that the OpenCL test does not, likely due to driver scheduling differences or how the two chips handle the API's command buffer structure.

Looking at the average benchmark score across all recorded tests, the Quadro P400 sits at 4684, while the GT 745M averages 3953. That gives the P400 an overall edge of roughly 18.5% when both cards' full benchmark suites are considered. The average score is a composite metric, so it smoothes out the individual test swings, but it still points to the P400 as the more capable part on aggregate.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The Quadro P400 lands in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 745M sits in the 23rd percentile. Both are low-end parts by modern standards, but the P400 is positioned slightly higher in the overall distribution. The nearest rivals data also places the P400 in a tighter cluster, with its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, just 0.9% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320 both within 0.6%. The GT 745M's nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 0.1% lower and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 0.1% lower, show that it competes in a similar performance band.

One notable observation is that the GT 745M has a Geekbench Metal score of 2777, while the Quadro P400 has no recorded Metal benchmark. This is not a head-to-head comparison since the P400 lacks a Metal score in the database, but it does show that the GT 745M has been tested across a wider variety of API workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins with a score of 4249, which is 18.7% higher than the GT 745M's 3580.

Q: Does the GeForce GT 745M win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The GT 745M scores 5502 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the Quadro P400's 5119 by 7%.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P400 has an average score of 4684, while the GT 745M averages 3953. The P400 leads by roughly 18.5%.

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

A: The Quadro P400 is in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, and the GT 745M is in the 23rd percentile.

Q: What is the closest rival for each card?

A: For the Quadro P400, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX is 0.9% higher in average score. For the GT 745M, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is 0.3% higher.

Q: Does the GT 745M have a Metal benchmark score?

A: Yes, the GT 745M records a Geekbench Metal score of 2777. The Quadro P400 has no Metal score in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The Quadro P400 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP107 chip, while the GT 745M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. Pascal is a newer design, and this shows in several fundamental ways.

The manufacturing process is a major divider. The P400 is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the GT 745M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink allows the P400 to pack 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The GT 745M, by contrast, contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, for a density of 10.8M per mm². The P400 more than doubles the transistor density, which is a direct consequence of the smaller process node.

The generation labels confirm the gap. The P400 belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation, while the GT 745M is part of the GeForce 700M lineup. The P400's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta. The GT 745M's predecessor is GeForce 600M and its successor is GeForce 800M. These are different product family trees, but the timeline is clear: the P400 is the newer design.

Feature support also differs. Both cards support DirectX 12, but the P400 implements version 12 (12_1), while the GT 745M only reaches 12 (11_0). This means the P400 supports the higher feature level. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6 for both. Vulkan support differs as well: the P400 offers Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 745M offers Vulkan 1.2.175. The P400's newer API support is consistent with its newer architecture.

The shading architecture is where the raw numbers get interesting. The GT 745M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GT 745M has more shaders and more texture units, yet it loses in OpenCL and has a lower FP32 throughput. This is a reminder that shader count alone does not determine performance; clock speeds and architectural efficiency matter more.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those fields are absent from the data. Both rely on traditional rasterization hardware.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems differ significantly. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the bus widths diverge. The Quadro P400 uses a 64-bit bus, while the GT 745M uses a 128-bit bus. This gives the GT 745M a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, exactly double the P400's 32.06 GB/s. The memory clock is nearly identical, with the P400 at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and the GT 745M at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from the wider bus on the GT 745M.

Clock speeds are another major difference, though the data is incomplete for the GT 745M. The P400 has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost clock of 1252 MHz. The GT 745M has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The P400's higher clocks, combined with its Pascal architecture, push its FP32 performance to 641.0 GFLOPS, while the GT 745M manages 421.6 GFLOPS. The P400 also has a recorded FP16 performance of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GT 745M has no FP16 data.

Pixel and texture rates flip the expected hierarchy. The P400 achieves 20.03 GPixel/s and 20.03 GTexel/s. The GT 745M records 4.392 GPixel/s and 17.57 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is enormous, with the P400 over 4.5 times higher, despite having the same 16 ROPs. This is entirely due to the P400's much higher clock speed. The texture rate gap is smaller, at about 14%, because the GT 745M has 32 TMUs versus the P400's 16, partially compensating for its lower clocks.

Power consumption is lower on the P400. The P400 has a TDP of 30 W, while the GT 745M draws 45 W. The P400 also specifies a suggested power supply of 200 W, while the GT 745M has no suggested PSU listed. The P400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the GT 745M is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connector data.

Physical dimensions are only recorded for the P400: 150 mm (5.9 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The GT 745M has no dimension data. Display outputs also differ: the P400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GT 745M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented design.

Release dates are far apart. The GT 745M was released on 2013-03-31, while the P400 came out on 2017-02-06. Both are now end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P400 wins in general compute performance. Its OpenCL score is 18.7% higher, its FP32 throughput is 641.0 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS, and its average benchmark score is 4684 versus 3953. It also has a much higher pixel rate at 20.03 GPixel/s, which makes it the better choice for tasks that rely on fill-rate bound rendering. Its lower TDP of 30 W and single-slot form factor make it easier to integrate into compact systems. The P400 also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which matters for modern software.

The GeForce GT 745M wins in Vulkan performance, with a 7% higher score. It also has double the memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s, which could benefit workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth bound. The GT 745M has more shading units (384 versus 256) and more texture units (32 versus 16), so in theory it has more parallel resources, even if its clocks are lower. Its 128-bit memory bus is a structural advantage that the P400 cannot match.

The percentile data places the P400 higher overall, at the 27th percentile versus the 23rd, which aligns with its higher average score. The P400's nearest rivals are all within 1.2% of its average score, indicating it sits in a competitive band. The GT 745M's nearest rivals are similarly clustered, with deltas no larger than 0.6%.

For desktop users who need a low-profile, low-power card with strong OpenCL compute and modern API support, the P400 is the clear choice. For users who already have a GT 745M in a laptop and care about Vulkan performance, the GT 745M holds its own in that specific test, but the overall average leans toward the P400.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro P400 as the stronger overall GPU. It wins the OpenCL test by 18.7%, has a higher average benchmark score (4684 versus 3953), a higher FP32 throughput (641.0 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS), and a much higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s). It also runs cooler at 30 W versus 45 W and supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

The GeForce GT 745M is not without merits. It wins the Vulkan test by 7%, has double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s), and offers more shading units and texture units. Its 128-bit memory bus is a genuine structural advantage. But these strengths do not translate into a higher average score, and the card's lower FP32 throughput and pixel rate hold it back.

The choice depends on the workload. For OpenCL compute, modern API compatibility, and efficiency, the Quadro P400 is the better pick. For Vulkan-specific workloads or scenarios where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, the GT 745M has a case. However, the aggregate data, the percentile ranking, and the average benchmark score all favor the Quadro P400. Users who need a single card for general duties should lean toward the P400, while those specifically targeting Vulkan performance might still consider the GT 745M acceptable. Both are end-of-life products, so availability and platform support should factor into any decision, but on the recorded numbers alone, the P400 is the stronger part.