NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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 GTX 645 OEM

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 month(s) later
• Around 30% higher texture fill rate: 39.55 GTexel / s vs 30.53 GTexel / s
• Around 50% higher pipelines: 576 vs 384
• Around 30% better floating-point performance: 949.2 gflops vs 732.7 gflops
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1882 vs 1586
• Around 6% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 431 vs 406
• Around 32% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5238 vs 3973
• Around 42% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 546.51 vs 386.006
• Around 51% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.535 vs 1.018
• Around 76% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 27.524 vs 15.605
• Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.664 vs 31.155
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3531 vs 3493
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3531 vs 3493

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

• Around 16% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 824 MHz
• Around 27% lower typical power consumption: 51 Watt vs 65 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.283 vs 13.806
• Around 84% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2646 vs 1435
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3339 vs 3300
• Around 84% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2646 vs 1435
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3339 vs 3300

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1882 1586
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	431 406
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	5238 3973
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13.806 14.283
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	546.51 386.006
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.535 1.018
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.524 15.605
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	38.664 31.155
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1435 2646
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3531 3493
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3300 3339
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1435 2646
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3531 3493
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3300 3339

Compare specifications (specs)