AMD Radeon HD 6770 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and AMD Radeon HD 6770 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 40 nm era, yet they target fundamentally different segments of the market. The data shows a single benchmark comparison, with the Quadro 3000M edging out the Radeon by a margin of 1.9% in the Geekbench OpenCL test. However, their architectural philosophies and physical specifications diverge sharply, making raw performance only one part of a much larger story about what each GPU is designed to do.

Where Each One Wins

In the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL score, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M takes the win with a score of 3718 against the AMD Radeon HD 6770’s 3649. That is a delta of 1.9%, a slim but decisive victory for the Quadro. This margin is narrow enough that it suggests the two are essentially comparable in raw compute throughput for this particular OpenCL workload. The Quadro’s win here is notable because it achieves this result with a significantly lower thermal design power (75 W) compared to the Radeon’s 108 W.

The Radeon HD 6770, however, wins on sheer compute density and throughput per clock. Its architecture boasts a substantially higher pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 34.00 GTexel/s, compared to the Quadro’s 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s. This indicates that while the Quadro might win the specific OpenCL test, the Radeon is likely better suited for tasks that are heavily dependent on fill-rate and texture processing, such as traditional rasterization workloads. The Radeon’s shading units number 800, dwarfing the Quadro’s 240, and its FP32 performance of 1,360.0 GFLOPS is more than triple the Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS.

The real split is in the use-case. The Quadro is a professional mobile workstation part, indicated by its MXM Module slot width and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The Radeon is a consumer desktop card with a Dual-slot design and a full array of physical outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.1). The data suggests the Quadro wins the efficiency battle and the singular compute test, while the Radeon wins the raw throughput and interface flexibility battle.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two is vast. The Quadro 3000M is built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 332 mm² and housing 1,950 million transistors. The Radeon HD 6770 uses AMD’s TeraScale 2 architecture, built on the Juniper chip. It uses the same 40 nm process and foundry, but its die is only 166 mm² and contains 1,040 million transistors. This makes the Radeon a much denser chip in terms of transistor density, packing 6.3M transistors per mm² versus the Quadro’s 5.9M.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Quadro comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s. The Radeon has half the memory (1024 MB) on a 128-bit bus, resulting in a slightly lower bandwidth of 76.80 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory clock is listed at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the Radeon runs faster at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). This suggests the Quadro compensates for a slower clock with a wider bus.

The compute units are starkly different. The Quadro has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 800 shading units, 40 TMUs, but only 16 ROPs. This explains the Radeon’s massive lead in FP32 throughput (1,360 GFLOPS) and pixel rate (13.60 GPixel/s), as it has more shaders working in parallel, though its lower ROP count suggests it may struggle with certain pixel-heavy operations compared to the Quadro’s higher ROP count. The Quadro’s API support includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, while the Radeon supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4.

Power and physical requirements also diverge. The Quadro is a 75 W MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for laptops. The Radeon is a 108 W Dual-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W power supply. Its length is 198 mm (7.8 inches). The Quadro’s bus interface is MXM-B (3.0), whereas the Radeon uses the standard PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. These are not interchangeable parts; they serve completely different platforms.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is the faster GPU in the Geekbench OpenCL test, outperforming the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 1.9%. If the decision rests solely on that score, the Quadro is the winner. The data also shows the Quadro achieves this with a 33 W lower TDP, making it a more power-efficient part for the performance delivered.

However, the Radeon HD 6770 is not without its own statistical merits. The data shows it has over three times the FP32 floating-point performance (1,360.0 GFLOPS vs 432.0 GFLOPS) and nearly three times the pixel rate (13.60 GPixel/s vs 4.500 GPixel/s). For workloads that leverage these raw throughput metrics—such as rendering or compute tasks that are not captured by the single OpenCL benchmark—the Radeon appears to have a significant theoretical advantage. Its texture rate of 34.00 GTexel/s is also nearly double the Quadro’s 18.00 GTexel/s.

The verdict is a split: choose the Quadro 3000M if you need a low-power, mobile workstation solution that wins the available compute benchmark and offers a wider 256-bit memory bus and more VRAM (2 GB). Choose the Radeon HD 6770 if you need a desktop card with a standard PCIe interface, physical display outputs, and vastly superior raw compute and fill-rate specifications, despite losing the specific OpenCL test. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a choice based on platform and workload priorities.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718, which is 1.9% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 6770’s score of 3649.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s using a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon HD 6770 has 76.80 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the differences in power consumption?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W, whereas the Radeon HD 6770 has a TDP of 108 W and requires a 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6770 has 800 shading units, compared to 240 on the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the AMD Radeon HD 6770?

A: The launch MSRP is 129 USD.

Q: Are these GPUs compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The Quadro 3000M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), while the Radeon HD 6770 is a Dual-slot card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649 points. The winner is the Quadro 3000M, with a delta of 1.9%. This is a tight race, but it is the sole data point for direct comparison.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context. The Quadro 3000M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which scores 3717, a delta of 0%. The Radeon HD 6770’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050, scoring 3629, a delta of 0.6%. This places both cards in a similar performance tier, with the Quadro sitting right around the 3718 mark and the Radeon slightly below at 3649.

The most significant "wins" for the Radeon are not in the benchmark scores but in the architectural specifications. Its FP32 performance of 1,360.0 GFLOPS is a massive 214.8% higher than the Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s is 202.2% higher than the Quadro’s 4.500 GPixel/s. These are enormous theoretical advantages, even if they do not translate into a win in the OpenCL test. The Quadro counters with a 2 GB memory capacity that is double the Radeon’s 1024 MB, and a higher ROP count of 32 versus 16. In terms of memory bandwidth, the Quadro’s 80.00 GB/s is only 4.2% higher than the Radeon’s 76.80 GB/s, a negligible difference.

The data suggests that while the Quadro wins the single compute benchmark, the Radeon is a more powerful compute engine on paper. The discrepancy between the benchmark result and the raw specs likely reflects the nature of the OpenCL test, which may not fully utilize the Radeon’s parallel shader array. This highlights the importance of looking beyond a single benchmark when evaluating these two very different architectures. The Quadro’s win is real, but it is narrow, and the Radeon’s specification sheet shows a clear advantage in raw throughput metrics that could favor it in other, unrecorded workloads.