GeForce GT 645M vs GTX 560M
Aggregate performance score
GTX 560M outperforms GT 645M by a substantial 34% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 710 | 806 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | 0.24 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N12E-GS | N13P-GS |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 May 2011 (12 years ago) | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Current price | $1198 | $310 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 645M has 100% better value for money than GTX 560M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | Up to 710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 32 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.8 billion/sec | 22.7 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 595.2 gflops | 544.5 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 560M and GeForce GT 645M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3\GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | Up to 192 Bit | 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 60 GB/s | Up to 64.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | + |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GTX 560M outperforms GT 645M by 34% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GTX 560M outperforms GT 645M by 34% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GT 645M outperforms GTX 560M by 1% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GTX 560M outperforms GT 645M by 26% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GTX 560M outperforms GT 645M by 20% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GTX 560M outperforms GT 645M by 80% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GTX 560M outperforms GT 645M by 67% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 31
+3.3%
| 30
−3.3%
|
| Full HD | 37
+42.3%
| 26
−42.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 560M and GT 645M compete in popular games:
- GTX 560M is 3% faster in 900p
- GTX 560M is 42% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 560M is 300% faster than the GT 645M.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 560M is ahead in 50 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.22 | 2.40 |
| Recency | 30 May 2011 | 22 March 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 32 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 560M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 645M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
