NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 34% higher core clock speed: 837 MHz vs 625 MHz
- Around 34% higher texture fill rate: 26.78 GTexel / s vs 20 GTexel / s
- 2x more pipelines: 384 vs 192
- Around 34% better floating-point performance: 642.8 gflops vs 480.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 38% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 62 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 15% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1091 vs 947
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.489 vs 10.267
- Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 19.323 vs 19.02
- Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2255 vs 1600
- Around 86% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3133 vs 1682
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 vs 2668
- Around 41% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2255 vs 1600
- Around 86% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3133 vs 1682
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 vs 2668
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 April 2013 vs 24 December 2010 |
Core clock speed | 837 MHz vs 625 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 26.78 GTexel / s vs 20 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 vs 192 |
Floating-point performance | 642.8 gflops vs 480.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 62 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1091 vs 947 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.489 vs 10.267 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.323 vs 19.02 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2255 vs 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3133 vs 1682 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 vs 2668 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2255 vs 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3133 vs 1682 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 vs 2668 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 2000
- Around 44% higher memory clock speed: 2600 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- Around 68% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 301 vs 179
- Around 13% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3902 vs 3439
- Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 258.26 vs 202.905
- Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.885 vs 0.66
- Around 67% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.688 vs 8.184
Specifications (specs) | |
Memory clock speed | 2600 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 301 vs 179 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3902 vs 3439 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 258.26 vs 202.905 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.885 vs 0.66 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.688 vs 8.184 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 2000
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) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1091 | 947 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 179 | 301 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3439 | 3902 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.489 | 10.267 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 202.905 | 258.26 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.66 | 0.885 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 8.184 | 13.688 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.323 | 19.02 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2255 | 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3133 | 1682 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 2668 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2255 | 1600 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3133 | 1682 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 2668 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |
Code name | GK107 | GF106 |
Launch date | 1 April 2013 | 24 December 2010 |
Place in performance rating | 1287 | 1290 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | |
Price now | $87.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 17.65 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 837 MHz | 625 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 642.8 gflops | 480.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
Texture fill rate | 26.78 GTexel / s | 20 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 62 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,170 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP content protection | ||
HDMI | ||
LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | ||
VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Length | 178 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 41.6 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 2600 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Standard memory configuration | DDR3 / GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Blu-Ray 3D Support | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus |