NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 60% higher pipelines: 384 vs 240
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 5.9x lower typical power consumption: 32 Watt vs 189 Watt
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 2.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 164 vs 80
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3341 vs 3319
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3341 vs 3319
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 October 2012 vs 11 November 2008 |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 240 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt vs 189 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 164 vs 80 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3341 vs 3319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3341 vs 3319 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
- 2.1x more texture fill rate: 48.8 GTexel / s vs 22.7 billion / sec
- Around 14% better floating-point performance: 622.1 gflops vs 544.5 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1210 vs 936
- 6.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18229 vs 2683
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 48.8 GTexel / s vs 22.7 billion / sec |
| Floating-point performance | 622.1 gflops vs 544.5 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1210 vs 936 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18229 vs 2683 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 936 | 1210 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 164 | 80 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2683 | 18229 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.493 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 285.42 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.863 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.242 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.116 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1913 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3670 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3341 | 3319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1913 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3670 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3341 | 3319 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GK107 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 1 October 2012 | 11 November 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1187 | 1240 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,499 | |
| Price now | $178.89 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.02 | |
Technical info |
||
| CUDA cores | 384 | |
| Floating-point performance | 544.5 gflops | 622.1 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 240 |
| Texture fill rate | 22.7 billion / sec | 48.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt | 189 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,400 million |
| Core clock speed | 610 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 267 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5870
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3400
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M vs
AMDRadeon R6 M255DX
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M vs
AMDFirePro W2100
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 940M
