AMD Radeon HD 6770 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 6770 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000M represent two very different design philosophies from the same era, and the benchmark data offers a clear, if narrow, picture of their relative performance. The Radeon HD 6770 is a desktop-oriented part built on AMD's TeraScale 2 architecture, while the Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation GPU based on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture. Their Geekbench OpenCL scores, the only direct benchmark available, show the AMD card ahead, but the full specification sheets reveal why each might be chosen for a specific role.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. This puts the AMD card 6.3% ahead in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon HD 6770 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon HD 6770 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050, which scores 3629, with a delta of 0.6%. It also sits just 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GT 735M (3616) and 1.5% ahead of the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596). It trails the GeForce 825M (3694) by 1.2%.

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

A: The Radeon HD 6770 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 76.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6770 has a pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the Quadro 2000M's 4.400 GPixel/s. This is a direct consequence of having the same 16 ROPs but a much higher core clock configuration.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon HD 6770 has a TDP of 108 W and requires a 6-pin power connector, while the Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W and uses no power connectors, being an MXM module.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The Quadro 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon HD 6770 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4. Neither card supports Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon HD 6770 is built on the Juniper chip using the TeraScale 2 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,040 million transistors into a die size of 166 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 6.3M per mm². The card belongs to the Northern Islands (HD 6700) generation and was released on 2011-01-20.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip with the Fermi architecture, also on a 40 nm TSMC process. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a larger die of 238 mm², giving it a lower transistor density of 4.9M per mm². This is part of the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, released slightly earlier on 2011-01-12.

The most striking architectural difference is in the compute unit configuration. The Radeon HD 6770 has 800 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. In contrast, the Quadro 2000M has only 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This massive disparity in shading units directly explains the performance gap: the AMD card delivers 1,360.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The Radeon uses GDDR5 memory at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, achieving 76.80 GB/s. The Quadro uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, but only reaches 28.80 GB/s. The effective memory clock difference is over 2.6x in favor of AMD, which is critical for bandwidth-bound workloads.

Another key difference is the physical form factor. The Radeon HD 6770 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 198 mm (7.8 inches) in length, with display outputs of 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.1. The Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module using the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." This makes the Quadro a mobile-only solution, while the Radeon is a fixed desktop card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The delta is 6.3% in favor of AMD, and this represents the sole head-to-head win for the Radeon (1 win, 0 losses).

Breaking down where this lead comes from, the Radeon's 800 shading units versus 192 means it can process far more parallel threads per cycle. Even accounting for the Fermi architecture's higher clock efficiency per core, the raw parallel throughput advantage is overwhelming. The FP32 performance of 1,360.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS is a 3.2x gap, which directly translates to OpenCL workloads that are compute-bound.

Memory bandwidth is another major factor. At 76.80 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, the Radeon HD 6770 has 2.67x more bandwidth. In OpenCL tests that involve large data transfers or texture-heavy operations, this advantage compounds. The pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s (3.1x difference) and texture rate of 34.00 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s (1.9x difference) further reinforce the AMD card's dominance in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

However, the Quadro 2000M is not without its own strengths in the broader context. Its nearest rival comparison shows it is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431) and 1.3% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389). It trails the GeForce 920MX (3528) by 2.7% and the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) by 3.1%. This places the Quadro in a similar performance tier as low-end desktop and mobile integrated graphics, which is expected given its modest 55 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon HD 6770 has 800 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon's pixel rate is 13.60 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 34.00 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,360.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS.

Memory differs in size, type, and speed: the Radeon uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) for 76.80 GB/s bandwidth; the Quadro uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The bus width is identical at 128-bit, but the memory technology gap is decisive.

Power and physical specs diverge completely. The Radeon has a TDP of 108 W, is dual-slot, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested PSU. It uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Quadro has a TDP of 55 W, is an MXM Module with no power connectors, and uses the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. Its dimensions are not specified, while the Radeon is 198 mm long.

API support also differs: the Radeon lists DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4; the Quadro lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro's higher OpenGL version is notable for professional workstation applications that rely on newer OpenGL features. Both cards are end-of-life, with the Radeon having a launch MSRP of 129 USD (the Quadro has no listed launch MSRP). The Radeon also has a slightly later release date of 2011-01-20 versus 2011-01-12 for the Quadro.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the AMD Radeon HD 6770. Its 6.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with vastly superior compute, memory bandwidth, and fill rates, makes it the more powerful GPU by any raw metric. The 3.2x FP32 advantage and 2.67x memory bandwidth advantage are not minor differences; they represent a fundamentally different performance class.

However, the Quadro 2000M is not a direct competitor in the conventional sense. It is a mobile workstation part with a 55 W TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency is paramount. Its 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while slower, doubles the capacity of the Radeon's 1 GB GDDR5, which could be beneficial for applications that need more frame buffer space than bandwidth. The Quadro's higher OpenGL 4.6 support also gives it an edge in professional OpenGL applications that can leverage newer API features.

For a desktop user building a system with available power and space, the Radeon HD 6770 is the obvious choice. Its 108 W TDP is modest, and its dual-slot form factor is standard for desktop GPUs. The 129 USD launch MSRP (stated once here) reflects its mainstream positioning at release.

For a mobile workstation user, the Quadro 2000M is the only option between the two, given its MXM form factor. Its lower power draw and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for thin laptops, even if its performance is significantly lower. The choice is not about which is faster—that is clearly the Radeon—but about which fits the intended hardware platform.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon HD 6770 wins in: raw compute performance (1,360.0 GFLOPS vs 422.4 GFLOPS), memory bandwidth (76.80 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s), pixel fill rate (13.60 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s), texture fill rate (34.00 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s), and the single head-to-head benchmark (3649 vs 3434, a 6.3% advantage). It also has more shading units (800 vs 192) and TMUs (40 vs 32), which directly benefits any parallel workload. Its GDDR5 memory at 4.8 Gbps effective is vastly superior to DDR3 at 1800 Mbps.

NVIDIA Quadro 2000M wins in: memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB), power efficiency (55 W TDP vs 108 W TDP), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 vs DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4). Its MXM form factor and lack of power connectors make it the only viable option for portable devices, and the larger frame buffer can help in applications that store large datasets on the GPU. The higher OpenGL version is a tangible advantage for specialized workstation software that uses modern OpenGL extensions.

The overall picture is one of a desktop performance card versus a mobile efficiency card. The Radeon dominates in every speed-related metric, while the Quadro offers capacity, efficiency, and a mobile-friendly form factor. Neither card is suitable for the other's primary use case, so the selection should be driven entirely by whether the target system is a desktop or a laptop.