AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 represent two distinct approaches to mobile and desktop graphics from an era of rapid architectural transition. The data shows a narrow overall victory for the NVIDIA part, which wins the only available benchmark comparison, but the underlying specifications tell a more complex story. The Quadro K3000M is a professional mobile solution built on a modern 28 nm Kepler design, while the Radeon HD 6850 X2 is a dual-GPU desktop card based on the older 40 nm TeraScale 2 architecture. These are fundamentally different products targeting different use cases, and the benchmark results reflect only one dimension of their capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a clear, if limited, picture: the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the single head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test. It scores 4241 against the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2’s 3977, a 6.6% advantage. This suggests that in compute-oriented workloads that leverage OpenCL, the Quadro K3000M has a measurable edge despite its lower raw fillrate and compute figures.

However, the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is not without its own areas of theoretical dominance based on the specification data. The Radeon card offers substantially higher pixel and texture throughput, with a pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s compared to the Quadro’s 7.848 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s. The Radeon also has significantly higher FP32 compute performance at 1.536 TFLOPS, roughly double the Quadro’s 753.4 GFLOPS. For workloads that are heavily dependent on raw shading power or fillrate, the Radeon HD 6850 X2 is likely to outperform based on these specifications, even if the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the Quadro K3000M wins in the measured OpenCL compute benchmark, while the Radeon HD 6850 X2 appears positioned to win in pure rasterization-heavy scenarios or those that can utilize its dual-GPU configuration effectively. The Quadro’s professional pedigree and lower power envelope make it a better fit for mobile workstations where reliability and efficiency are paramount, whereas the Radeon’s brute-force specifications suggest it was designed for high-performance desktop gaming or compute tasks where power consumption is less of a concern.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture, utilizing the GK104 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This newer node allows for a transistor density of 12.0M per mm², packing 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. The Kepler architecture is known for its efficiency and scaled compute capabilities, which likely contributes to its OpenCL benchmark win.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 uses the older TeraScale 2 architecture, with the Barts chip on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. This results in a much lower transistor density of 6.7M per mm², with 1,700 million transistors on a 255 mm² die. TeraScale 2 is a previous-generation design that relies on a different shader model, which explains why its FP32 performance is higher on paper but may not translate to equal performance in modern compute benchmarks like OpenCL.

The memory subsystems also differ significantly. The Quadro K3000M runs its 2 GB of GDDR5 at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) over a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon HD 6850 X2 also has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but runs at 1050 MHz (4.2 Gbps effective), producing 134.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This 50% bandwidth advantage for the AMD card is substantial and should benefit memory-intensive workloads.

Architecturally, the Quadro features 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Radeon packs 960 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon’s higher shader count and memory bandwidth are classic TeraScale strengths, but the Kepler architecture’s newer instruction set and scheduling efficiency appear to give the Quadro the edge in the OpenCL test. The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and OpenGL 4.6, while the Radeon lacks Vulkan support entirely and only offers OpenGL 4.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 scores 3977. This gives the NVIDIA part a 6.6% victory, a modest but consistent margin. This result places the Quadro K3000M in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon HD 6850 X2 sits just below at the 24th percentile.

Examining the nearest rivals provides additional context. The Quadro K3000M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Vega 3, which scores 4268, a 0.6% difference in favor of the Vega 3. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, 1% behind the Quadro) and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.3% behind the Quadro). The Quadro is notably ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which scores 4193, a 1.2% delta in the Quadro’s favor.

For the Radeon HD 6850 X2, its nearest rivals are all within a tight band. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 3964, a 0.3% delta in the Radeon’s favor, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957) and AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956) are 0.5% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M trails by 0.6% with a score of 3953. This clustering indicates that the Radeon HD 6850 X2’s OpenCL performance is competitive with entry-level to mid-range parts from a later era, but it is not a standout.

The benchmark results indicate that while the AMD card has superior raw specifications in several areas, its older architecture does not translate that into a win in this particular compute test. The Quadro’s 6.6% lead is meaningful for professional applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category, reflecting their different market positions and generations. The process node is a key differentiator: the Quadro K3000M uses 28 nm, while the Radeon HD 6850 X2 uses 40 nm. This leads to a transistor count of 3,540 million for the NVIDIA chip versus 1,700 million for the AMD chip, and a corresponding die size difference of 294 mm² versus 255 mm².

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The Quadro has a fixed base and boost clock of 654 MHz, while the Radeon’s core clock is not specified in the data. Memory clocks differ, with the Quadro at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) and the Radeon at 1050 MHz (4.2 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth follows, with the Quadro delivering 89.60 GB/s and the Radeon 134.4 GB/s.

The shading unit count is the largest discrepancy: the Radeon has 960 shading units compared to the Quadro’s 576. Both have 48 TMUs and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is dramatically different, with the Radeon at 25.60 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 7.848 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, at 38.40 GTexel/s for the Radeon and 31.39 GTexel/s for the Quadro. FP32 compute is 1.536 TFLOPS for the Radeon and 753.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors, making it suitable for laptops. The Radeon HD 6850 X2 has a TDP of 254 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 600 W, indicating a desktop-only dual-slot card. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the Radeon uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

API support varies as well. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, but has no Vulkan support. Display outputs differ, with the Quadro being portable-device dependent and the Radeon offering 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.1.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the available benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark with a score of 4241, compared to the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2’s 3977, a 6.6% margin.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 134.4 GB/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 has a TDP of 254 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 has a higher FP32 performance at 1.536 TFLOPS, which is roughly double the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s 753.4 GFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4 but lacks Vulkan support.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each GPU based on average benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro K3000M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, -0.6%), while the Radeon HD 6850 X2’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, +0.3%). The Quadro K3000M also leads the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1.2%.