AMD Radeon HD 6770 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile and desktop graphics cards. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the only head-to-head test in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 4241 against 3649 for the AMD Radeon HD 6770. That is a 16.2% advantage for the Quadro, a decisive margin in a compute-oriented workload.

Looking at the two cards in isolation, the Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon HD 6770 sits at the 22nd percentile. Both are firmly in the lower-middle range of recorded performance, but the Quadro holds a clear edge in the only test where both were measured. The Radeon HD 6770 does not win any benchmark category in the database, so its profile is defined entirely by relative proximity to its nearest rivals rather than by outright victories.

The Quadro K3000M, as a mobile workstation part, appears built for sustained compute throughput. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (scoring 4268, a 0.6% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (scoring 4282, a 1% difference). The GTX 1050 Ti sits 1.2% behind the Quadro in the database, and the AMD FirePro W2100 trails by 1.3%. This clustering suggests the Quadro K3000M occupies a performance neighborhood where small differences separate competitors, and its 16.2% lead over the Radeon HD 6770 is therefore notable.

The Radeon HD 6770, by contrast, has nearest rivals that include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (scoring 3629, a 0.6% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (scoring 3616, a 0.9% difference). The NVIDIA GeForce 825M sits 1.2% ahead of the Radeon, and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation sits 1.5% behind. This grouping places the Radeon HD 6770 in a lower performance tier overall, despite its higher raw compute figures on paper.

In practical terms, the database indicates that the Quadro K3000M is the stronger compute performer, while the Radeon HD 6770 trails by a meaningful margin. Neither card shows a use case where the Radeon wins outright; the Quadro takes the sole benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing nodes. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon HD 6770 uses the Juniper chip, based on the older TeraScale 2 architecture, produced on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,040 million transistors on a 166 mm² die, with a transistor density of 6.3 million per square millimeter. The Quadro therefore uses a newer, denser manufacturing process and carries more than three times the transistor count.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro K3000M runs at a fixed 654 MHz base and boost clock, with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Radeon HD 6770 has no recorded base or boost clock for the core, but its memory runs at 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). Despite the higher memory clock on the Radeon, its memory bus is narrower at 128 bit versus 256 bit on the Quadro, and its bandwidth is lower at 76.80 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s. The Quadro also has more memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, both using GDDR5.

Shader and output hardware differ substantially. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Radeon HD 6770 has 800 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Radeon has more shaders but fewer texture units and half the ROPs. The resulting fill rates reflect this: the Radeon achieves a pixel rate of 13.60 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s on the Quadro, and a texture rate of 34.00 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s. However, the Quadro has a higher FP32 compute rate of 753.4 GFLOPS? No, the data shows the opposite: the Radeon HD 6770 has an FP32 of 1,360.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro K3000M has 753.4 GFLOPS. This is a notable inversion: the Radeon has higher raw floating-point throughput on paper, yet loses the OpenCL benchmark by 16.2%.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro K3000M is a 75 W MXM module with no power connectors, suited for laptops. The Radeon HD 6770 is a dual-slot desktop card drawing 108 W, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply. Its length is 198 mm (7.8 inches). The Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

API support differs as well. The Quadro lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon lists DirectX 11.2 (11_0), OpenGL 4.4, and no Vulkan support. The Quadro is also newer by roughly 16 months: it launched on 2012-05-31, while the Radeon launched on 2011-01-20. The Quadro lists its predecessor as Quadro Fermi-M and successor Quadro Maxwell-M, while the Radeon lists predecessor Evergreen and successor Southern Islands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head test between the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and the AMD Radeon HD 6770: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro scores 4241, the Radeon scores 3649, and the delta is 16.2% in favor of the Quadro. This is the only direct comparison available, so it carries the full weight of the head-to-head assessment.

The magnitude of this win is worth contextualizing. The Quadro's 16.2% lead is larger than the gap between the Radeon and any of its nearest rivals. For example, the Radeon HD 6770 trails the NVIDIA GeForce 825M by 1.2%, and leads the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation by 1.5%. Against the Quadro, however, the Radeon falls behind by more than ten times those margins. The Quadro's nearest rivals, meanwhile, are all within about 1.3% of its score, meaning the Quadro is tightly clustered with its own competitors but far ahead of the Radeon.

The Radeon's higher FP32 figure (1,360.0 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS) does not translate into OpenCL success. This suggests the benchmark rewards other factors, such as memory bandwidth, driver maturity, or architectural efficiency. The Quadro's wider 256 bit memory bus and higher bandwidth (89.60 GB/s versus 76.80 GB/s) may contribute to its advantage in this workload. The Radeon's higher pixel and texture rates (13.60 GPixel/s and 34.00 GTexel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s) also fail to help in compute.

The percentile data reinforces the same story. The Quadro sits at the 25th percentile, the Radeon at the 22nd. Three percentile points separate them in the overall distribution, a modest but consistent gap. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 4241, matching its single benchmark result, while the Radeon's average is 3649. Both cards have only one recorded benchmark in the database, so their averages equal their single scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4241, beating the AMD Radeon HD 6770's 3649 by 16.2%.

Q: Does the Radeon HD 6770 have higher raw compute performance than the Quadro K3000M?

A: On paper, yes. The Radeon HD 6770 has an FP32 rating of 1,360.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro K3000M has 753.4 GFLOPS. However, the Quadro still wins the OpenCL benchmark by 16.2%.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two cards?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon HD 6770 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, yielding 76.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card draws more power?

A: The Radeon HD 6770 draws 108 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply. The Quadro K3000M draws 75 W and has no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro K3000M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 11.2 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon HD 6770 lists DirectX 11.2 (11_0 and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support.

Q: What are the release dates of these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon HD 6770 launched on 2011-01-20, and the Quadro K3000M launched on 2012-05-31.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M as the better choice for compute workloads, at least as measured by the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. Its 16.2% lead over the Radeon HD 6770 is substantial in a field where its own nearest rivals sit within 1.3% of its score. The Quadro also offers more memory (2 GB versus 1 GB), higher bandwidth (89.60 GB/s versus 76.80 GB/s), a wider memory bus (256 bit versus 128 bit), lower power draw (75 W versus 108 W), and newer API support including Vulkan.

The Radeon HD 6770, despite its higher FP32 rating (1,360.0 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS) and higher pixel rate (13.60 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s), loses the only recorded benchmark. Its higher shader count (800 versus 576) does not translate into a compute win. The Radeon does have a higher texture rate (34.00 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s) and a faster effective memory clock (4.8 Gbps versus 2.8 Gbps), but these do not overcome the Quadro's advantages in the measured workload.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life cards, the Quadro K3000M is the stronger option in the database's recorded metrics. The Radeon HD 6770 may still appeal to those interested in its desktop form factor, higher raw floating-point specifications, or its lower launch MSRP of 129 USD. The Quadro K3000M has no recorded launch MSRP. On performance data alone, however, the Quadro wins the only comparison available.

The Radeon's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (0.9% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (1.2% ahead). The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (1.2% ahead). These clusters show both cards competing in similar performance territory, but the Quadro sits slightly higher in the overall distribution at the 25th percentile versus the Radeon's 22nd.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | AMD Radeon HD 6770 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 2 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,040 million |

| Die size | 294 mm² | 166 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.0M / mm² | 6.3M / mm² |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | 76.80 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) |

| Shading units | 576 | 800 |

| TMUs | 48 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 7.848 GPixel/s | 13.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 31.39 GTexel/s | 34.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 753.4 GFLOPS | 1,360.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 108 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 300 W (suggested) |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.1 |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | null |

| Release date | 2012-05-31 | 2011-01-20 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 129 USD |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Evergreen |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Southern Islands |

| Benchmark score (Geekbench OpenCL) | 4241 | 3649 |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 25 | 22 |

| Average benchmark score | 4241 | 3649 |