AMD Radeon HD 6770 vs AMD Radeon Vega 3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3963, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649. That puts the Vega 3 ahead by 8.6%, a meaningful margin for compute workloads. The Vega 3 wins the only shared benchmark, giving it a 1-0 record in direct comparisons.

Looking at broader context, the Vega 3's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4268, which places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M with an average score of 4282 (0.3% higher), the AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295 (0.6% higher), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4241 (0.6% lower). Notably, even the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, a far more modern part, only scores 4335 on average, just 1.5% above the Vega 3 in this particular metric, which suggests the Vega 3 punches well above its weight class in synthetic compute tests.

The HD 6770, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark, the same Geekbench OpenCL test, and its average benchmark score is 3649, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 at 3629 (0.6% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M at 3616 (0.9% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M at 3694 (1.2% lower). The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation sits at 3596, which is 1.5% lower than the HD 6770, an interesting data point showing that even a modern mobile workstation GPU can trail this decade-old part in a single OpenCL workload.

The delta of 8.6% between the two contenders is substantial in the context of their respective peer groups. The HD 6770's average score sits near the bottom of its rival cluster, while the Vega 3's average score sits near the top of its cluster, separated from the RTX 4070 GDDR6 by only a small fraction. In practical terms, the data indicates that the Vega 3 delivers roughly 314 more points in OpenCL compute, which translates to better performance in GPU-accelerated tasks that rely on raw shader throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different eras of AMD's design philosophy. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture, specifically the Picasso chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The HD 6770 uses the much older TeraScale 2 architecture with the Juniper chip, produced on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This process gap is enormous: 12 nm versus 40 nm, which explains why the Vega 3 packs 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The HD 6770, by comparison, has only 1,040 million transistors on a 166 mm² die, giving it a density of 6.3 million per square millimeter. That is a 3.7x density advantage for the Vega 3, a direct consequence of the more advanced fabrication node.

The shader configurations tell a different story. The HD 6770 has 800 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units, while the Vega 3 has just 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Despite having roughly 4.2x more shaders, the HD 6770 loses in compute throughput. The Vega 3 delivers 422.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the HD 6770 delivers 1,360.0 GFLOPS, which is actually 3.2x higher. However, the Vega 3 also supports FP16 with 844.8 GFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, a feature the HD 6770 lacks entirely. The pixel rate favors the HD 6770 at 13.60 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s for the Vega 3, and the texture rate similarly favors the older card at 34.00 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s. These raw throughput numbers suggest the HD 6770 should be faster in pure rasterization, but the OpenCL benchmark tells a different story, likely due to architectural efficiency and driver optimizations for GCN.

Memory is another fundamental divergence. The Vega 3 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's RAM. The HD 6770 has dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 76.80 GB/s of bandwidth. That dedicated memory is a significant advantage for the older card in scenarios where memory latency and bandwidth are critical, but it also means the HD 6770 is limited to 1 GB of VRAM, which can be a bottleneck for modern workloads. The Vega 3 can access as much system memory as the platform provides, but it shares that bandwidth with the CPU, which can introduce contention.

Power consumption is starkly different. The Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors, operating as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a motherboard dependent output. The HD 6770 has a TDP of 108 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested power supply of 300 W. This 93 W difference means the Vega 3 is designed for low-power laptops and compact systems, while the HD 6770 is a dual-slot discrete card measuring 198 mm (7.8 inches) in length, intended for desktop builds with adequate cooling and power delivery.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice based on workload. For compute-oriented tasks measured by OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the superior part, delivering an 8.6% higher score despite having far fewer shading units and a fraction of the memory bandwidth. This suggests that GCN 5.0's architectural improvements, including better instruction scheduling and driver efficiency, more than compensate for the raw hardware deficit. The Vega 3 also offers modern API support with DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the HD 6770 is limited to DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4 with no Vulkan support. For anyone running modern applications or games that leverage Vulkan or DX12, the Vega 3 is the only viable option between the two.

However, the HD 6770 retains advantages in pixel fill rate and texture fill rate, with 13.60 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s and 34.00 GTexel/s versus 13.20 GTexel/s, respectively. In older DirectX 11 titles that rely heavily on these fixed-function units, the HD 6770 could outperform the Vega 3, and its dedicated 76.80 GB/s memory bandwidth is a hard asset that the Vega 3 cannot match with system shared memory. The HD 6770 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 1,360.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS, which matters for workloads that are purely FP32-bound without the benefits of newer architectural features.

The production status of both is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof investment. The Vega 3's 15 W power envelope makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, while the HD 6770's 108 W TDP and dual-slot form factor require a desktop chassis with a 300 W power supply. If the choice is between these two for a new build, the Vega 3's modern feature set and better OpenCL score make it the more sensible pick for general use and modern software. If the use case is specifically legacy gaming or applications that favor high pixel and texture throughput, the HD 6770's dedicated memory and higher fill rates give it a niche edge, though its lack of Vulkan support is a growing liability.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

| Specification | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | AMD Radeon HD 6770 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | TeraScale 2 |

| Chip | Picasso | Juniper |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 4,940 million | 1,040 million |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 166 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 6.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1200 MHz, 4.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 76.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 800 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 12 | 40 |

| Raster Output Units | 4 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.400 GPixel/s | 13.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.20 GTexel/s | 34.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 422.4 GFLOPS | 1,360.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 15 W | 108 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.1 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | Not specified |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 198 mm (7.8 inches) length |

| Release Date | 2019-11-19 | 2011-01-20 |

| Predecessor | GCN 3.0 IGP | Evergreen |

| Successor | Vega II IGP | Southern Islands |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 129 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has an average benchmark score of 4268, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 has an average score of 3649, a difference of 619 points in favor of the Vega 3.

Q: What is the performance difference in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Vega 3 scores 3963 versus 3649 for the HD 6770, giving the Vega 3 a win with an 8.6% delta.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors, while the HD 6770 has a TDP of 108 W, needs a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Q: Does the HD 6770 support modern graphics APIs like Vulkan?

A: No, the HD 6770 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support listed. The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and higher raw FP32 throughput?

A: The HD 6770 has 800 shading units and delivers 1,360.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, whereas the Vega 3 has 192 shading units and delivers 422.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Vega 3 uses system shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent, while the HD 6770 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 76.80 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth.