NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA hardware with different design priorities. The GT 745M is a Kepler-based mobile GPU from the GeForce 700M series, while the Quadro 2000 is a Fermi-based workstation card from the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. Despite their differing architectures and intended markets, benchmark data places them within 1.4% of each other in average score, making this a surprisingly close comparison between a laptop-oriented part and a professional desktop GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M leads with an average benchmark score of 3953, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000's 3898. The delta between them is 1.4% in favor of the GT 745M, according to the nearestRivals data.

Q: How do the two compare in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898 against the GT 745M's 3580, giving the Quadro a 8.2% advantage. This is the sole head-to-head benchmark in the dataset, and it favors the workstation card.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The GT 745M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus but with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth, running at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 745M features 384 shading units, exactly double the Quadro 2000's 192 shading units. Both cards have 32 texture mapping units and 16 raster output units.

Q: What is the process node difference between these two chips?

A: The GT 745M's GK107 chip is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro 2000's GF106 chip uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This represents a significant generational manufacturing difference.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both the GT 745M and Quadro 2000 support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GT 745M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed.

The Verdict

The data presents an interesting choice that depends entirely on the workload. For general compute tasks measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro 2000 is the clear winner, outperforming the GT 745M by 8.2% in the only direct comparison available. This is notable given that the Quadro 2000 has half the shading units and less than two-thirds the memory bandwidth of the GT 745M. The Quadro's higher FP32 performance (480.0 GFLOPS vs 421.6 GFLOPS) and pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s) likely explain this result.

However, the GT 745M holds advantages in memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB), bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s), and transistor density (10.8M / mm² vs 4.9M / mm²). The GT 745M also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro 2000 lacks entirely. For users who need maximum OpenCL compute performance in a professional context, the Quadro 2000 appears superior based on the head-to-head result. For those who value memory capacity, modern API support, and lower power consumption (45 W vs 62 W), the GT 745M makes a stronger case despite its lower raw compute score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The dataset contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 achieves a score of 3898, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M reaches 3580. The Quadro 2000 wins by a margin of 8.2%, a substantial lead given the apparent specification disadvantages it faces.

This result is counterintuitive at first glance. The GT 745M has 384 shading units versus the Quadro's 192, and the GT 745M's memory runs at 4 Gbps effective versus the Quadro's 2.6 Gbps. Yet the Quadro still wins decisively. The explanation likely lies in the Quadro's higher clock rates for compute operations: its FP32 throughput of 480.0 GFLOPS exceeds the GT 745M's 421.6 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s beats the GT 745M's 17.57 GTexel/s. The Quadro's pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s also edges out the GT 745M's 4.392 GPixel/s.

The overall average benchmark scores tell a different story, however. The GT 745M's average of 3953 is slightly higher than the Quadro's 3898, a 1.4% difference. This suggests that while the Quadro wins in OpenCL, the GT 745M may perform better in other benchmark categories not directly compared here. The GT 745M has additional benchmark scores in the dataset: Geekbench Metal at 2777 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5502, while the Quadro 2000 only lists the OpenCL result. The GT 745M's strong Vulkan showing likely contributes to its higher average.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference lies in memory configuration. The GT 745M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 versus the Quadro 2000's 1024 MB. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GT 745M's memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) produces 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the Quadro's 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) yielding 41.60 GB/s. This gives the GT 745M a 54% bandwidth advantage.

Shading unit counts also differ dramatically: 384 on the GT 745M versus 192 on the Quadro 2000. Both cards feature 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, so those counts are identical. The GT 745M's FP32 performance of 421.6 GFLOPS trails the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS despite the former having twice the shading units, indicating the Quadro runs at higher per-unit efficiency.

Power and physical specifications diverge significantly. The GT 745M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 45 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card with a 62 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro measures 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GT 745M's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs.

The bus interface differs as well: the GT 745M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. This could impact data transfer speeds in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the practical effect is modest given the GPUs' other characteristics.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial and generational. The GT 745M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 2000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process node difference (28 nm versus 40 nm) is reflected in the transistor density: the GT 745M packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, achieving 10.8M transistors per mm², while the Quadro 2000 crams 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding just 4.9M transistors per mm².

The GT 745M's Kepler architecture represents a more modern design philosophy, with twice the shading units of Fermi but lower per-unit clock rates. The Quadro 2000's Fermi architecture, despite being older, delivers higher FP32 throughput (480.0 GFLOPS vs 421.6 GFLOPS) from fewer, likely higher-clocked cores. The transistor count difference is modest (1,270 million vs 1,170 million), but the die size difference is stark (118 mm² vs 238 mm²), highlighting the efficiency gains from the 28 nm process.

API support further differentiates the two. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GT 745M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 2000 lists no Vulkan support. This makes the GT 745M significantly more future-proof for modern cross-platform graphics APIs. The GT 745M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5502, demonstrating functional Vulkan performance, whereas the Quadro 2000 cannot run Vulkan workloads at all.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 2000 wins in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL. Its 8.2% lead in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with higher FP32 throughput (480.0 GFLOPS vs 421.6 GFLOPS), higher texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 17.57 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s), makes it the stronger choice for OpenCL-heavy professional workloads. Its single-slot form factor and fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) also make it more suitable for desktop workstation environments where multiple monitors are required.

The GT 745M wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 2 GB versus 1024 MB and 64.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s. This advantage is critical for workloads that exceed the Quadro's memory limit or that benefit from higher bandwidth, such as large texture sets or high-resolution framebuffers. The GT 745M's lower TDP (45 W vs 62 W) makes it more power-efficient, and its IGP form factor suits laptop or compact systems where space is constrained.

The GT 745M also wins decisively on API modernity. Its Vulkan 1.2.175 support and strong Vulkan benchmark score of 5502 mean it can handle modern Vulkan-based applications, while the Quadro 2000 cannot. For users running contemporary games or compute applications that leverage Vulkan, the GT 745M is the only option between the two. Its higher average benchmark score (3953 vs 3898) further suggests broader overall capability, even though the Quadro wins the specific OpenCL comparison.

In summary, the Quadro 2000 is for OpenCL-centric professional compute tasks where raw FP32 and fill rates matter most, while the GT 745M suits general-purpose use, modern API support, and memory-intensive workloads. The choice hinges on whether the user prioritizes the Quadro's compute edge or the GT 745M's flexibility and capacity.