AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

# AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a dual-GPU desktop monster built for raw throughput, the other a mobile workstation part designed for efficiency and driver certification. Benchmark data shows the AMD card winning the only shared test, but the real story lies in how each card's architecture and design goals shape its intended use.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, scoring 3977 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro 3000M's 3718. That is a 7% advantage, which is modest but consistent. The AMD card also sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the Quadro 3000M's 22nd percentile. In terms of nearest rivals, the HD 6850 X2 edges out the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 by 0.3%, the GeForce 830M by 0.5%, and the Radeon R5 M420 by 0.5%. The Quadro 3000M, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the GeForce GT 740M (0% delta), trails the GeForce GT 635M by 0.6%, and beats the GeForce 825M by 0.6% and the Radeon HD 6770 by 1.9%.

Where the Quadro 3000M wins is not in raw compute but in context. It is a mobile MXM module with a 75 W TDP, meaning it can be dropped into a laptop. The HD 6850 X2 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 254 W TDP and two 8-pin power connectors, requiring a 600 W PSU. If you need a workstation GPU for a laptop, the Quadro 3000M is the only option here. If you need raw OpenCL compute in a desktop, the AMD card takes the lead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 uses the Barts chip built on TeraScale 2, part of the Northern Islands (HD 6800) generation. It is manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process with 1,700 million transistors on a 255 mm² die. The transistor density is 6.7 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip based on Fermi, from the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. It is also on TSMC's 40 nm node but packs 1,950 million transistors into a larger 332 mm² die, giving a lower density of 5.9 million per mm².

The AMD card's TeraScale 2 architecture emphasizes wide parallel execution with 960 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 3000M's Fermi architecture is more conservative on paper, with 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: the HD 6850 X2 delivers 25.60 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 4.500 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 38.40 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is 1.536 TFLOPS against 432.0 GFLOPS. These are not close numbers; the AMD card is fundamentally a higher-throughput design.

Memory also diverges. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the AMD card runs its memory at 1050 MHz (4.2 Gbps effective), yielding 134.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 3000M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), giving 80.00 GB/s. That is a 68% bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, which directly impacts OpenCL workloads that stream data.

Feature support differs too. The AMD card supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4. The Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither supports Vulkan. The Quadro's higher OpenGL version may matter for specific professional applications, while the AMD card's older API level is a limitation for newer software.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 scores 3977 against the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 3718. That is a 7% delta in favor of AMD. This result aligns with the broader compute specifications: the AMD card has 4x the shading units, 2.1x the texture rate, and 3.6x the FP32 throughput. The 7% benchmark gap is smaller than the raw spec gap suggests, which indicates that the Quadro 3000M's Fermi architecture extracts more efficiency per shader, or that the OpenCL workload is not purely shader-bound.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context. The HD 6850 X2's 3977 score places it just 0.3% ahead of the Quadro K2000 (3964), a professional desktop card. The Quadro 3000M's 3718 score is 0.6% behind the GeForce 635M (3740) and 1.9% ahead of the Radeon HD 6770 (3649). These deltas are small, meaning both cards sit in a tightly packed performance cluster. The AMD card wins, but it is not a blowout.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 has 960 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 240. That is a 4x difference.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD card offers 134.4 GB/s, while the Quadro 3000M provides 80.00 GB/s. The AMD card has 68% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a 75 W TDP and requires no external power connectors. The HD 6850 X2 has a 254 W TDP and needs two 8-pin connectors plus a 600 W PSU.

Q: Can either card support DirectX 12?

A: The Quadro 3000M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) support, while the HD 6850 X2 is limited to DirectX 11.2 (11_0).

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The HD 6850 X2's closest rival is the Quadro K2000 (0.3% delta). The Quadro 3000M's closest rival is the GeForce GT 740M (0% delta).

Q: Which card has a larger die?

A: The Quadro 3000M's GF104 chip is 332 mm², larger than the HD 6850 X2's Barts chip at 255 mm², despite having fewer transistors per area.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification:

• Process node: Both are 40 nm, but the AMD card's die is 255 mm² versus 332 mm² for the NVIDIA chip.
• Transistors: AMD packs 1,700 million; NVIDIA has 1,950 million.
• Density: AMD achieves 6.7M transistors per mm²; NVIDIA manages 5.9M.
• Memory clock: AMD runs at 1050 MHz (4.2 Gbps effective); NVIDIA at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: 134.4 GB/s for AMD versus 80.00 GB/s for NVIDIA.
• Shading units: 960 versus 240.
• TMUs: 48 versus 40.
• ROPs: Both have 32.
• Pixel rate: 25.60 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 38.40 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 1.536 TFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS.
• TDP: 254 W versus 75 W.
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus MXM Module.
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none.
• Bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus MXM-B (3.0).
• Display outputs: 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x DisplayPort 1.1 versus "Portable Device Dependent".
• DirectX: 11.2 (11_0) versus 12 (11_0).
• OpenGL: 4.4 versus 4.6.
• Release date: 2011-09-18 versus 2011-02-21.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is the clear compute winner. It beats the Quadro 3000M by 7% in OpenCL, has 68% more memory bandwidth, 4x the shading units, and over 3.5x the FP32 throughput. Its 24th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 22nd confirms the edge. If your workload is OpenCL compute and you have a desktop with a 600 W PSU and two 8-pin connectors, the AMD card is the data-backed choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is not a compute competitor; it is a mobility play. Its 75 W TDP, MXM-B form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for laptops. It also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, which the AMD card does not. For a mobile workstation needing certified drivers and a compact footprint, the Quadro 3000M is the only option between these two. Its 3718 OpenCL score is only 7% behind the AMD card, which is respectable given the massive power and form factor differences.

Choose the HD 6850 X2 for raw performance in a desktop. Choose the Quadro 3000M for a mobile workstation with lower power draw and newer API support. The data does not support any other conclusion.