
GeForce GT 645

Radeon R9 350
GeForce GT 645 vs Radeon R9 350 Performance Spectrum
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
GeForce GT 645 vs Radeon R9 350 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
GeForce GT 645 vs Radeon R9 350: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.
GeForce GT 645
2012Why buy it
- ✅Draws 32W instead of 300W, a 268W reduction.
- ✅Measures 145mm instead of 168mm, a 23mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 350 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌2012 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
Radeon R9 350
2015Why buy it
- ✅211.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌2015 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
- ❌837.5% higher power demand at 300W vs 32W.
- ❌15.9% longer card at 168mm vs 145mm.
Quick Answers
Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce GT 645 vs Radeon R9 350 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce GT 645
The GeForce GT 645 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 1 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is Up to 710 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 32W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,006 points.

Radeon R9 350
The Radeon R9 350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,998 points. Launch price was $329.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 645 scores 2,006 and the Radeon R9 350 reaches 1,998 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 645 is built on Kepler while the Radeon R9 350 uses GCN 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 645) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 350). Raw compute: 0.5445 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 645) vs 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 350).
| Feature | GeForce GT 645 | Radeon R9 350 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,006 | 1,998 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2560+567% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5445 TFLOPS | 5.12 TFLOPS+840% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 160+400% |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 640 KB+1900% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GT 645 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R9 350 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GT 645 | Radeon R9 350 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards ship with 2 GB of GDDR5. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GT 645 and 128-bit on the Radeon R9 350. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 645) vs 1 MB (Radeon R9 350) — the Radeon R9 350 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GT 645 | Radeon R9 350 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GT 645) vs 12_0 (Radeon R9 350). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GT 645 | Radeon R9 350 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_0 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (1st Gen) (GeForce GT 645) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 350). Decoder: NVDEC (1st Gen) vs UVD 3.1.
| Feature | GeForce GT 645 | Radeon R9 350 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (1st Gen) | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC (1st Gen) | UVD 3.1 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 645 draws 32W versus the Radeon R9 350's 300W — a 161.4% difference. The GeForce GT 645 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 645) vs 300W (Radeon R9 350). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 145mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GT 645 | Radeon R9 350 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 32W-89% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 145mm | 168mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 62.7+836% | 6.7 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GT 645 came in at $99, while the Radeon R9 350 launched at $99. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 20.3 (GeForce GT 645) vs 20.2 (Radeon R9 350) — the GeForce GT 645 offers 0.5% better value. The newer card here is Radeon R9 350 (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GT 645 | Radeon R9 350 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99 | $99 |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.3 | 20.2 |
| Codename | GK107 | Grenada |
| Release | October 1 2012 | June 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #903 | #296 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















