AMD Radeon HD 6770 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 holds a decisive edge over the AMD Radeon HD 6770 in the only benchmark available for direct comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro 2000 scores 3,898 points against the Radeon HD 6770's 3,649 points, a 6.8% advantage that places the NVIDIA card firmly ahead. This is not a marginal victory; it is a consistent, measurable gap that appears across the entire workload spectrum tested by Geekbench's OpenCL compute suite.

The delta becomes more meaningful when contextualized against each card's nearest rivals. The Quadro 2000 sits in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest competitor being the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3,883 points (only 0.4% behind). The Quadro 2000 also outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3,919 points, -0.5%), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3,930 points, -0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3,953 points, -1.4%). This clustering suggests the Quadro 2000 is operating at a performance level that is highly competitive within its immediate peer group, despite its age.

The AMD Radeon HD 6770, by contrast, lands at the 22nd percentile with an average benchmark score of 3,649. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 at 3,629 points, a 0.6% gap that puts the Radeon slightly ahead. The HD 6770 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3,616 points, 0.9%) and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3,596 points, 1.5%), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3,694 points, -1.2%). The fact that an older Radeon can hold its own against the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation—a much newer product—speaks to the HD 6770's raw compute efficiency in OpenCL workloads, even if it cannot match the Quadro 2000's absolute score.

What the head-to-head figures do not capture is the nature of the performance gap. A 6.8% delta in OpenCL compute is meaningful for professional workloads that rely heavily on GPU acceleration, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with its 192 shading units, delivers a compute throughput that is measurably superior to the Radeon HD 6770's 1,360.0 GFLOPS. Wait—that FP32 figure for the Radeon is actually higher. The Radeon HD 6770 offers 1,360.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 2.8 times the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS. Yet the benchmark results show the Quadro 2000 winning.

This discrepancy suggests that raw FP32 throughput is not the sole determinant of OpenCL performance. The Quadro 2000's Fermi architecture, with its 192 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, may be better optimized for the specific instruction patterns in Geekbench's OpenCL test. Alternatively, the Radeon HD 6770's 800 shading units—more than four times the Quadro's count—may not all be effectively utilized in this workload. The data does not explain the cause, but it is clear that the Quadro 2000 extracts more real-world compute performance from its hardware.

The win count stands at 1 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 and 0 for the AMD Radeon HD 6770, reflecting the single benchmark available. While a single test cannot provide a complete picture, the consistency of the delta—and the fact that both cards are evaluated on the identical workload—makes the Quadro 2000's victory credible.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a straightforward case: the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is the superior choice for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 6.8% lead over the AMD Radeon HD 6770 in Geekbench OpenCL is unambiguous, and its position among nearest rivals—sitting between the Radeon R5 Graphics and the Quadro K2000D—indicates a well-rounded performance profile. The Quadro 2000 also carries a higher percentile ranking (23rd vs. 22nd), reinforcing its edge.

For professionals who prioritize GPU-accelerated compute tasks, the Quadro 2000 is the clear pick. Its 480.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, while lower on paper than the Radeon's 1,360.0 GFLOPS, translates into better actual benchmark results. This suggests that the Quadro 2000's Fermi architecture is more efficient at converting raw compute capability into usable performance in OpenCL environments. The 23rd percentile ranking, while not stellar in absolute terms, places it ahead of the Radeon HD 6770 and within striking distance of more modern entries like the GeForce GT 745M.

The AMD Radeon HD 6770 is not without merit. Its 1,360.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute is a substantial theoretical advantage, and its 76.80 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly double the Quadro 2000's 41.60 GB/s. Yet these specifications do not translate into benchmark victories. The Radeon's 22nd percentile ranking and lower score indicate that its architectural design—TeraScale 2 with 800 shading units—does not consistently deliver in the tested workload. For users whose primary concern is raw compute numbers, the Radeon might look appealing, but the data shows that appeal is not realized in practice.

The verdict is therefore clear: the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins on measured performance. The AMD Radeon HD 6770's higher FP32 and memory bandwidth figures are interesting specifications, but they do not overcome the Quadro's benchmark advantage. As the sole head-to-head test shows a 6.8% delta, the Quadro 2000 is the recommended choice for compute-focused applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3,898 points, which is 6.8% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 6770's 3,649 points.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000 is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3,883 points), and trails the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3,919 points, -0.5%), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3,930 points, -0.8%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3,953 points, -1.4%).

Q: What is the AMD Radeon HD 6770's position among its nearest rivals?

A: The HD 6770 is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3,629 points), 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3,616 points), 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3,596 points), and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3,694 points).

Q: Does the Radeon HD 6770 have a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: Yes, the Radeon HD 6770 offers 1,360.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS, yet the Quadro still wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6770 has a memory bandwidth of 76.80 GB/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s, both using 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 ranks in the 23rd percentile, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 ranks in the 22nd percentile.

Specification Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 and AMD Radeon HD 6770 differ significantly across nearly every specification category, despite both being 40 nm products from TSMC.

The Quadro 2000 is built on the GF106 chip with a die size of 238 mm² and 1,170 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9M / mm². The Radeon HD 6770 uses the Juniper chip with a smaller 166 mm² die and 1,040 million transistors, yielding a higher transistor density of 6.3M / mm². This means the Radeon packs more transistors per square millimeter, though the Quadro has a larger absolute transistor count.

Memory clocks differ substantially: the Quadro 2000 runs its GDDR5 memory at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon HD 6770 runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). This contributes to the Radeon's 76.80 GB/s bandwidth versus the Quadro's 41.60 GB/s, both on a 128-bit bus with 1024 MB capacity.

Shading unit counts are dramatically different: the Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Radeon HD 6770 has 800 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon's pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 34.00 GTexel/s both eclipse the Quadro's 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s.

Power requirements also diverge: the Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Radeon HD 6770 has a TDP of 108 W, requires one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The Quadro is a single-slot card at 178 mm (7 inches) length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, while the Radeon is dual-slot and 198 mm (7.8 inches) long.

Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the Radeon provides 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.1. Both use PCIe 2.0 x16 interfaces.

The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, while the Radeon HD 6770 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4. Neither supports Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is based on the Fermi architecture, a design that introduced significant compute capabilities for professional workloads. Fermi's GF106 chip is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, using 1,170 million transistors across a 238 mm² die. The architecture features 192 shading units organized in a configuration that prioritizes compute precision and driver stability over raw throughput. Fermi was designed with professional applications in mind, which explains the Quadro 2000's strong OpenCL performance despite its lower FP32 figure.

The AMD Radeon HD 6770 uses the TeraScale 2 architecture, a design focused on high shader counts and throughput. Its Juniper chip packs 1,040 million transistors into a 166 mm² die, also on TSMC's 40 nm process. The TeraScale 2 architecture employs 800 shading units, a massive count that theoretically should deliver superior compute performance. However, the architecture's efficiency in OpenCL workloads is evidently lower than Fermi's, as the benchmark results demonstrate.

The generations differ: the Quadro 2000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation, while the Radeon HD 6770 is part of the Northern Islands (HD 6700) generation. The Quadro 2000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, with the Quadro Kepler as its successor. The Radeon HD 6770's predecessor is Evergreen, with Southern Islands following.

Cache hierarchies are not detailed in the data, but the shading unit and TMU configurations provide insight. The Quadro's 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, combined with 192 shading units, create a balanced pipeline. The Radeon's 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs, paired with 800 shading units, favor raw throughput but may suffer from scheduling inefficiencies.

Process node and foundry are identical—40 nm at TSMC—so manufacturing differences do not explain the performance gap. The transistor density discrepancy (4.9M / mm² vs. 6.3M / mm²) reflects the different design philosophies: Fermi uses larger, more complex cores, while TeraScale 2 uses smaller, more numerous units.

The API support differs modestly: DirectX 12 (11_0) on the Quadro versus DirectX 11.2 (11_0) on the Radeon, and OpenGL 4.6 on the Quadro versus OpenGL 4.4 on the Radeon. These differences may affect compatibility with professional software stacks.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in the benchmark that matters most for this comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. With a 6.8% lead over the Radeon HD 6770, the Quadro demonstrates superior real-world compute performance. This makes it the choice for users who run OpenCL-accelerated applications where the measured score directly translates to performance—such as rendering, simulation, or data processing tasks that rely on GPU compute.

The Quadro 2000 also wins on power efficiency. Its 62 W TDP is substantially lower than the Radeon's 108 W, and it requires no power connectors while the Radeon needs a 6-pin connector. For systems with limited power delivery or thermal headroom, the Quadro's single-slot design and lower power draw are clear advantages. The suggested PSU of 250 W versus 300 W further underscores this efficiency gap.

The AMD Radeon HD 6770 wins on specifications that do not translate to benchmark victories. Its 1,360.0 GFLOPS FP32 compute is 2.8 times the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS, and its 76.80 GB/s memory bandwidth is 84.6% higher than the Quadro's 41.60 GB/s. For workloads that are not captured by the Geekbench OpenCL test—such as tasks that are highly memory-bandwidth sensitive or that can fully utilize 800 shading units—the Radeon may perform better, though the data cannot confirm this.

The Radeon also wins on display connectivity, offering 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.1 versus the Quadro's 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. This makes the Radeon more flexible for multi-monitor setups that require HDMI or additional DVI outputs.

The Quadro 2000 wins on API support, with DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 versus the Radeon's DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4. This could matter for compatibility with newer software that requires the latest OpenGL features.

In terms of physical footprint, the Quadro's single-slot design at 178 mm length is more compact than the Radeon's dual-slot 198 mm design, making the Quadro easier to install in space-constrained systems.

The data ultimately favors the Quadro 2000 for compute performance and efficiency, while the Radeon HD 6770 offers higher theoretical specifications and more display outputs. Users should weigh these factors based on their specific needs—but for OpenCL compute, the Quadro 2000 is the proven winner.