AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is not close. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 13,584 while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 scores 3,977, a delta of 70.7% in favor of the Quadro. That is a massive margin, more than triple the raw score. For any OpenCL compute workload, the Pascal-based card simply overwhelms the older TeraScale 2 part.

What makes this gap more striking is the context from the nearest rivals. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 3,977. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3,964 (0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3,957 (0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3,956 (0.5% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3,953 (0.6% behind). In other words, the HD 6850 X2 is essentially tied with a cluster of low-end and older mobile and workstation parts. It is not a meaningful outlier in either direction; it is right in the middle of a very tight pack.

The Quadro P1000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3,163 across all recorded tests, but that figure is dragged down by its very low DirectX scores. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 at 3,182 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 at 3,210 (1.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER at 3,075 (2.9% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 920M at 3,287 (3.8% ahead). These are all within a few percentage points of each other, which suggests the average score is not the full story. The Geekbench OpenCL result stands apart from that average by a wide margin, showing that the P1000 has a clear compute strength that its other benchmarks do not reflect.

The HD 6850 X2 has no wins in the head-to-head comparison. The P1000 wins the single recorded head-to-head test. There are no Vulkan scores for the AMD card, no DirectX scores, no Passmark results. The database only contains the one OpenCL entry for the older card, so the comparison is limited but decisive in that single metric.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is the superior card. A 70.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not a marginal advantage; it is a generational gap. The P1000 delivers 1.894 TFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to 1.536 TFLOPS for the HD 6850 X2, and while that raw throughput difference is about 23%, the actual OpenCL score gap is much larger. That suggests the P1000 extracts far more real-world performance from its compute resources, likely due to architecture efficiency and driver maturity.

The Quadro also has a much higher pixel rate at 47.36 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 59.20 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s. These are not close calls. The P1000 is faster in every measured throughput metric.

Who should pick the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2? The data does not support choosing it for any benchmark where the P1000 has a recorded score. Its only advantage is in the specification sheet: it has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, higher memory bandwidth at 134.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, more shading units at 960 versus 640, and more TMUs at 48 versus 40. But those advantages do not translate into a benchmark win. In fact, the HD 6850 X2 loses the only test where both cards have results, despite having more raw hardware resources.

The P1000 is the pick for anyone running OpenCL workloads, DirectX applications, or Vulkan tasks. The AMD card might still be relevant for legacy systems that require its specific display outputs (2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x DisplayPort 1.1) or for users who need its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory in a dual-slot, dual 8-pin configuration. But in pure performance terms, the Quadro wins.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is built on TeraScale 2 architecture, using the Barts chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Northern Islands generation (HD 6800 series). The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 uses Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung, and belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation.

The transistor counts tell a story of process evolution. The HD 6850 X2 packs 1,700 million transistors on a 255 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 6.7 million per square millimeter. The P1000 crams 3,300 million transistors onto a much smaller 132 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. That is nearly four times the density, which explains how the P1000 delivers higher performance while consuming far less power.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The HD 6850 X2 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1050 MHz (4.2 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 134.4 GB/s. The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The AMD card has the wider bus and higher bandwidth, but the NVIDIA card has double the capacity and a faster effective memory clock.

The shading units differ: 960 for the AMD card versus 640 for the NVIDIA card. TMUs are 48 versus 40. ROPs are identical at 32. The P1000 has a higher FP32 throughput at 1.894 TFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS, and it also supports FP16 at 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), a feature the HD 6850 X2 does not list.

Power and physical design are radically different. The HD 6850 X2 has a TDP of 254 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested 600 W PSU. It is a dual-slot card. The P1000 has a TDP of 47 W, requires no power connectors, and a suggested 200 W PSU. It is a single-slot card measuring 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The contrast could not be starker: one is a power-hungry dual-slot monster, the other is a low-profile efficiency champion.

API support also differs. The HD 6850 X2 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0), OpenGL 4.4, and no Vulkan. The P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P1000 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16 while the HD 6850 X2 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs diverge as well. The AMD card offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.1. The P1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 wins decisively with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 13,584 versus 3,977 for the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2, a 70.7% lead.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark wins?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 in the head-to-head comparison. The P1000 wins the single recorded test.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 has higher bandwidth at 134.4 GB/s due to its 256-bit bus, compared to 80.19 GB/s for the P1000 on a 128-bit bus. However, the P1000 has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The HD 6850 X2 has a TDP of 254 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested 600 W PSU. The P1000 has a TDP of 47 W, needs no power connectors, and a suggested 200 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 supports Vulkan, with version 1.4 listed. The AMD HD 6850 X2 has no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The HD 6850 X2 uses a 40 nm process at TSMC with 1,700 million transistors on a 255 mm² die. The P1000 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 wins in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded data. It wins OpenCL by a 70.7% margin. It has higher FP32 throughput, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and a lower TDP by a factor of more than five. It supports modern APIs including DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. For compute tasks, professional visualization, and any workload that leverages modern driver features, the P1000 is the clear choice.

The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 wins in specific specification categories. It has a wider memory bus at 256-bit versus 128-bit. It has higher memory bandwidth at 134.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. It has more shading units at 960 versus 640 and more TMUs at 48 versus 40. It also offers legacy display outputs (DVI, HDMI 1.3a, DisplayPort 1.1) that may be useful for older monitors or specialized equipment. But none of these specification advantages translate into a benchmark victory.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance, modern API support, energy efficiency, and compact physical design, the P1000 is the only reasonable choice. For users who need the specific legacy display outputs, the wider memory bus, or the higher memory bandwidth of the HD 6850 X2, the older card still has a role, but it comes with a 254 W TDP, dual-slot size, and dual 8-pin power requirements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 | NVIDIA Quadro P1000 |

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

| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Pascal |

| Chip | Barts | GP107 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,700 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 255 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 6.7M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.4 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1050 MHz (4.2 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 960 | 640 |

| TMUs | 48 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.60 GPixel/s | 47.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.40 GTexel/s | 59.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.536 TFLOPS | 1.894 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 254 W | 47 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, 1x DisplayPort 1.1 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-09-18 | 2017-02-06 |

| Predecessor | Evergreen | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Southern Islands | Quadro Volta |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |