AMD Radeon HD 8870M vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8,462. The Quadro 6000 leads by 16.4%, which is a substantial margin in compute workloads.

Q: How does the Quadro 6000 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Quadro 6000 sits 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832), 0.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803), and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780). It trails the GeForce GTX 870M by 1.1% (9,959).

Q: Where does the Radeon HD 8870M rank among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon HD 8870M falls in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX330, scores 8,458, which is only 0.1% behind. The Intel Arc A380 scores 8,558, placing it 1.1% ahead.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Quadro 6000 features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon HD 8870M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Radeon HD 8870M achieves 12.2M transistors per mm² on a 28 nm process, compared to the Quadro 6000's 5.9M per mm² on a 40 nm process. The Radeon packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, while the Quadro packs 3,100 million into a 529 mm² die.

Q: What API support differs between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon HD 8870M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and AMD Radeon HD 8870M represent two fundamentally different design philosophies and eras of GPU architecture. The Quadro 6000 is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. This is a massive, professional-grade die measuring 529 mm² and containing 3,100 million transistors. The transistor density of 5.9M per mm² reflects the older, larger process node and the complexity of Fermi's compute-focused design.

In contrast, the Radeon HD 8870M uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. This die is dramatically smaller at 123 mm², yet still packs 1,500 million transistors, achieving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm², more than double that of the Quadro. The GCN architecture was designed from the ground up for general-purpose compute, with a unified shader array that scales efficiently across different product tiers.

The compute resources are organized differently. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon HD 8870M has a higher count of 640 shading units but fewer fixed-function units, with 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This means the Radeon has more raw shader throughput potential per clock, but the Quadro's higher ROP count gives it an advantage in pixel-heavy workloads.

Memory architecture also differs substantially. The Quadro 6000 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR5 at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), yielding 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon HD 8870M uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), producing 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro's memory subsystem is nearly twice as wide and delivers double the bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets in professional visualization. The Radeon's faster memory clock partially compensates, but the bandwidth gap remains decisive.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Radeon HD 8870M has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 775 MHz, while the Quadro 6000's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The Radeon's boost capability allows it to adapt to thermal headroom, whereas the Quadro's fixed design focuses on sustained workstation reliability.

The PCIe interface differs: the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Radeon HD 8870M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, offering double the per-lane bandwidth. The Radeon also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro lacks entirely. Both support DirectX 12, but the Radeon's 11_1 feature level is slightly newer than the Quadro's 11_0.

The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors with a 204 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Radeon HD 8870M's power specifications are not recorded, but as a mobile-oriented chip, it is designed for lower power envelopes. The Quadro's physical dimensions are 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Radeon's dimensions are not listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a clear winner. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8,462. The Quadro wins by 16.4%, a decisive margin that reflects its workstation-grade compute architecture and much larger memory bandwidth.

This 16.4% advantage is significant when contextualized against the nearest rivals of both cards. The Quadro 6000's closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, scores 9,832, only 0.1% behind. The AMD FirePro W5000 is 0.4% behind at 9,803, and the GeForce GTX 1070 is 0.7% behind at 9,780. The Quadro's score places it in a tight cluster of mid-to-high-end GPUs, all within 1% of each other, with only the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) ahead by 1.1%.

The Radeon HD 8870M, by contrast, sits in a lower performance tier. Its score of 8,462 puts it 0.1% ahead of the GeForce MX330 (8,458) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436). The GeForce GTX 675MX trails by 0.4% at 8,427, while the Intel Arc A380 leads by 1.1% at 8,558. The Radeon's nearest rivals are all within a narrow band, suggesting that its OpenCL performance is representative of a mainstream mobile or entry-level discrete GPU class.

The performance gap between the two cards in this benchmark can be attributed to several architectural factors. The Quadro 6000's 143.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is a massive advantage for OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound, such as large matrix operations and image processing. The Radeon's 72.00 GB/s bandwidth is only half of that, and even with its higher shader count of 640 units versus 448, the memory bottleneck limits its effective compute throughput.

Additionally, the Quadro 6000's 48 ROPs versus the Radeon's 16 ROPs means pixel-fill operations are far faster on the Quadro, which can influence OpenCL benchmarks that include image readback and write operations. The Quadro also has a higher texture fill rate at 32.14 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s, a small but measurable edge.

In terms of overall percentile ranking, the Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon HD 8870M sits at the 43rd percentile. This 4-percentile gap confirms that the Quadro occupies a higher performance tier despite its older release date.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 9,846 is 16.4% higher than the Radeon HD 8870M's 8,462, and it ranks in the 47th percentile of all GPUs versus the Radeon's 43rd percentile. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute throughput, the Quadro 6000 is the stronger choice.

The Quadro 6000 also offers substantially more memory: 6 GB versus 2 GB, with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s. This makes it better suited for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and compute tasks that require frequent memory access. The 384-bit bus is a workstation-class feature that the Radeon's 128-bit bus cannot match.

However, the Radeon HD 8870M is a newer architecture with advantages in efficiency and modern API support. Its 28 nm process and GCN 1.0 design deliver higher transistor density, and it supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro lacks. The Radeon also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the bus bandwidth available to the host system.

The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot, 204 W card with external power connectors, indicating a desktop workstation form factor. The Radeon HD 8870M has no recorded power or slot specifications, suggesting a mobile or compact design. Users needing a professional workstation GPU with massive memory should choose the Quadro 6000. Users requiring a modern, efficient GPU with Vulkan support and a smaller footprint should consider the Radeon HD 8870M.

For compute workloads specifically, the Quadro wins decisively. For API compatibility and architectural modernity, the Radeon holds the edge. The choice depends on the workload and platform constraints, but benchmark results put the Quadro 6000 ahead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | AMD Radeon HD 8870M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GF100 | Venus |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 725 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 775 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 640 |

| TMUs | 56 | 40 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 12.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 31.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 992.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 204 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Not recorded |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not recorded |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | Not recorded |

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

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2010-12-09 | 2013-03-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | Not recorded |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins in compute performance, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its OpenCL score is 16.4% higher, and its 6 GB memory with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the Radeon's 2 GB and 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro also has higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS). These figures make it the preferred choice for professional visualization, scientific computing, and any workload that demands large memory pools or high-bandwidth data movement.

The Quadro also excels in fixed-function throughput. Its 48 ROPs are triple the Radeon's 16, making it far stronger in pixel-heavy rendering and framebuffer operations. The 384-bit bus is a clear workstation advantage, and the 204 W TDP with dual-slot cooling suggests sustained performance under load.

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M wins in architectural efficiency and modern connectivity. Its 28 nm process delivers 12.2M transistors per mm², more than double the Quadro's density, indicating a more efficient use of silicon. The Radeon has more shading units (640 versus 448), which can benefit shader-bound workloads that do not saturate memory bandwidth. It also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, opening access to modern cross-platform graphics APIs that the Quadro cannot use.

The Radeon's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface doubles the host bus bandwidth compared to the Quadro's PCIe 2.0, reducing data transfer bottlenecks for applications that stream geometry or textures from system memory. Its higher memory clock of 4.5 Gbps effective partially compensates for the narrower bus, though not enough to close the bandwidth gap.

The Radeon's smaller die size and lack of recorded power specifications suggest it is suited to compact or mobile platforms where the Quadro's dual-slot, 204 W design would be impractical. For users with space or thermal constraints, the Radeon is the more adaptable option.

In summary, the Quadro 6000 wins in absolute compute and memory-bound tasks, while the Radeon HD 8870M wins in efficiency, API support, and platform flexibility. The recorded benchmark gives the Quadro the overall performance crown, but the Radeon offers modern features that the older Fermi card cannot provide.