GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and AMD Radeon HD 6770 are two end-of-life graphics cards from different eras and design philosophies. The data available shows a single head-to-head benchmark, but the full specification sheets reveal two very distinct products aimed at different workloads. The Quadro K2000 is a professional workstation card built on a modern 28 nm Kepler architecture, while the Radeon HD 6770 is an older, power-hungry consumer card based on the 40 nm TeraScale 2 design. This analysis breaks down where each card wins based on the benchmark results and architectural data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear, if narrow, picture. In the only direct head-to-head comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins decisively. It scores 4071 points against the AMD Radeon HD 6770's 3649 points. That is a delta of 11.6 percent, meaning the Quadro K2000 is more than a tenth faster in this compute-oriented test. The performance gap is significant enough to suggest that for general-purpose GPU compute tasks using OpenCL, the Quadro is the superior choice.

However, the wins are not limited to just that one test. The Quadro K2000 also has a broader benchmark profile. It has scores in three different Geekbench tests: Metal (3630), OpenCL (4071), and Vulkan (4191). The Radeon HD 6770 only has a single score in OpenCL. This means the Quadro K2000 can be evaluated across multiple modern API frameworks, and its average benchmark score of 3964 reflects this multi-faceted performance. The Radeon's average score of 3649 is based on a single test result, making it a less complete picture.

The architectural data also points to where each card wins. The Quadro K2000, with its 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, is a streamlined design focused on efficiency and professional precision. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon HD 6770, in contrast, packs 800 shading units and 40 TMUs, but its 1 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus provides 76.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon has a clear advantage in raw texture and pixel fill rates, 34.00 GTexel/s and 13.60 GPixel/s respectively, versus the Quadro's 30.53 GTexel/s and 7.632 GPixel/s. The Radeon also has a massive lead in FP32 compute, at 1,360.0 GFLOPS versus the Quadro's 732.7 GFLOPS. This suggests the Radeon should win in raw, unoptimized throughput, but the benchmark result shows the Quadro winning in the actual OpenCL test. This implies the Quadro's architecture is more efficient at executing the specific workload, or that its drivers are better optimized for the test.

The Verdict

The data suggests a clear split in use cases. For anyone relying on OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is the winner. Its 11.6 percent lead in the head-to-head test is a hard fact, and its support for Vulkan and Metal APIs makes it a more versatile modern computing device. The Quadro K2000's 2 GB memory capacity also gives it an advantage in workloads that require larger datasets, as the Radeon HD 6770 is limited to just 1 GB.

The AMD Radeon HD 6770, however, appears to be the card for those who value raw throughput over benchmark results. The specification sheet shows it has a higher FP32 compute capability (1,360.0 GFLOPS), higher texture fill rate (34.00 GTexel/s), and higher pixel rate (13.60 GPixel/s). If a workload is designed to leverage these raw hardware features, the Radeon could theoretically be faster, despite losing the single OpenCL test. Its higher memory bandwidth (76.80 GB/s) is also a point in its favor for certain memory-intensive tasks.

The percentile rankings place the Quadro K2000 in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, and the Radeon HD 6770 in the 22nd. This confirms that the Quadro is the better-performing card overall, even if the difference is marginal on a global scale. The nearest rivals for the Quadro include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (delta 0.2 percent) and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (delta 0.2 percent), indicating it sits in a performance tier with entry-level mobile parts. The Radeon's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (delta 0.6 percent), which is a much more modern desktop card, showing the Radeon is competitive with a newer generation despite its age. The verdict is that the Quadro K2000 is the superior card for compute tasks and modern API support, while the Radeon HD 6770 is a raw-power alternative that might excel in specific, less common scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only one head-to-head benchmark result in the data: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649. The winner is the Quadro K2000 with a delta of 11.6 percent. This is a substantial margin in a compute benchmark. It shows that despite the Radeon's theoretical FP32 advantage of nearly double (1,360.0 GFLOPS vs 732.7 GFLOPS), the Quadro's Kepler architecture and driver stack are more effective in this real-world test. This is a key finding, as it demonstrates that raw specifications do not always translate to benchmark wins.

The Quadro's other benchmark scores provide context. Its Vulkan score of 4191 is its highest, indicating strong performance in that API. Its Metal score of 3630 is its lowest, but still close to the Radeon's best OpenCL score. The Radeon HD 6770 has no Vulkan or Metal support listed, with a Vulkan API entry of null. This means the Quadro K2000 is the only card of the two that can even be tested in these modern frameworks, giving it a complete edge in those specific workloads.

The lack of a head-to-head test in other areas means we must rely on the specification differences to project potential wins. For example, the Radeon's higher texture rate of 34.00 GTexel/s suggests it would win in a texture-fill-rate-bound test, but no such test is in the data. Similarly, the Quadro's lower TDP of 51 W versus the Radeon's 108 W suggests it would win in an efficiency test, but that is not benchmarked. The single test we have, however, is clear and decisive: the Quadro K2000 wins the compute crown.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is faster. It scores 4071 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 11.6 percent higher than the AMD Radeon HD 6770's score of 3649.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 6770 have any performance advantages based on specifications?

A: Yes, the Radeon HD 6770 has higher raw specifications in several areas. It has a higher FP32 compute rating of 1,360.0 GFLOPS compared to 732.7 GFLOPS, a higher texture fill rate of 34.00 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s, and a higher pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s.

Q: Which card supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD Radeon HD 6770 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory. The Quadro has double the capacity.

Q: What is the performance percentile of each card compared to all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is in the 24th percentile, and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 is in the 22nd percentile. This means the Quadro is ranked slightly higher overall.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6770 has a higher memory bandwidth of 76.80 GB/s, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's 64.00 GB/s. This is despite the Quadro having a higher memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the Radeon's 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective), as the Radeon's bus width is the same at 128 bits.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK107 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a modern, power-efficient design. It contains 1,270 million transistors on a die size of 118 mm², giving it a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The architecture is designed for professional workloads, with a focus on compute precision and driver stability. It has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The memory configuration is 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

The AMD Radeon HD 6770, in contrast, is based on the older TeraScale 2 architecture, using the Juniper chip. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This is a larger and less dense chip, with 1,040 million transistors on a 166 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of only 6.3M per mm². The architecture is a VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) design, which is fundamentally different from NVIDIA's scalar approach. It has 800 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon has a 1 GB memory configuration on a 128-bit bus. The architectural differences explain the performance disparity. The Kepler architecture is more efficient at utilizing its shading units, while TeraScale 2 often requires specific instruction-level parallelism to reach its full potential, which is not always present in compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences between the two cards. The first is the process node: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses a 28 nm process, while the AMD Radeon HD 6770 uses a 40 nm process. This leads to a significant difference in power consumption. The Quadro has a TDP of 51 W and requires no power connectors, while the Radeon has a TDP of 108 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector. The suggested PSU also differs, with the Quadro needing 250 W and the Radeon needing 300 W. The physical design differs too: the Quadro is a single-slot card, while the Radeon is a dual-slot card. The lengths are similar, with the Quadro at 202 mm and the Radeon at 198 mm.

Memory specifications differ in capacity and bandwidth. The Quadro has 2 GB of memory with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, while the Radeon has 1 GB with a bandwidth of 76.80 GB/s. The memory clocks are 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) for the Radeon. Display outputs also vary: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.1. The API support differs, with the Quadro supporting DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support. Finally, the release dates differ, with the Radeon launching on January 20, 2011, and the Quadro launching on February 28, 2013.