NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M represent two distinct eras of mobile and workstation graphics, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a clear and decisive performance gap, with the Quadro P2000 leading the GTX 770M by 135.3% in the only shared test. While both cards occupy the 35th percentile among all GPUs, their average benchmark scores (6049 for the P2000, 6000 for the GTX 770M) suggest a near-identical overall standing, yet this aggregate figure masks the P2000’s substantial lead in compute-oriented workloads. The GTX 770M, a Kepler-based part from 2013, is fundamentally outclassed by the Pascal-based P2000 in raw throughput, but retains relevance in legacy DirectX 9 scenarios where its architecture shows relative strength.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward recommendation: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior choice for any application requiring modern compute performance, DirectX 12_1 feature support, or higher memory bandwidth. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20125 versus the GTX 770M’s 8552 represents a 135.3% advantage, making it the clear winner for GPU-accelerated tasks such as rendering, simulation, and professional content creation. The P2000 also doubles the FP32 throughput (3.031 TFLOPS vs 1.530 TFLOPS) and offers nearly 46% more memory bandwidth (140.2 GB/s vs 96.19 GB/s), making it the only rational pick for users who prioritize compute density and data throughput.

However, the GTX 770M is not without its niche. Its Kepler architecture, while older, demonstrates a peculiar strength in DirectX 9 workloads, as indicated by its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 124 in the P2000’s benchmark suite. While the P2000’s own DirectX 9 score is not listed in the head-to-head data, the GTX 770M’s relative performance in legacy APIs suggests it could serve as a functional, low-power option for older software. For users constrained to a portable MXM form factor with no external power connectors, the GTX 770M remains a viable, if dated, solution. Yet, the P2000 achieves the same 75 W TDP while delivering nearly double the FP32 performance, making it the superior engineering achievement. The verdict is clear: choose the P2000 for modern workloads, and reserve the GTX 770M for legacy compatibility or specific MXM chassis requirements.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, rooted in a generational shift from Kepler to Pascal. The Quadro P2000 utilizes the GP106 chip built on a 16 nm TSMC process, packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 22.0 million transistors per mm², a figure nearly double that of the GTX 770M. In contrast, the GTX 770M employs the GK106 chip on a 28 nm process, containing 2,540 million transistors across a larger 221 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 11.5 million transistors per mm². The P2000’s denser, more modern process enables higher clock speeds and greater efficiency.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The P2000 offers 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 770M provides only 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus, yet achieves just 96.19 GB/s due to lower effective memory clocks (4 Gbps vs 7 Gbps). The P2000’s smaller bus but faster memory yields superior bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Compute resources also favor the P2000. It houses 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, while the GTX 770M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. The P2000’s higher ROP count contributes to a pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s versus the GTX 770M’s 15.94 GPixel/s. Texture rate similarly favors the P2000 at 94.72 GTexel/s compared to 63.76 GTexel/s. The P2000’s FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS more than doubles the GTX 770M’s 1.530 TFLOPS, and the P2000 offers FP16 support (albeit at a 1:64 ratio), whereas the GTX 770M has no FP16 capability listed.

Feature support diverges sharply. The P2000 supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 770M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Display outputs differ as well: the P2000 provides four DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the GTX 770M’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The P2000 uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and single-slot design, whereas the GTX 770M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Both cards are end-of-life and share a 75 W TDP, but the P2000’s power delivery is cleaner, requiring no external connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 770M has no suggested PSU listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are lopsided. The Quadro P2000 scores 20125, while the GTX 770M scores 8552, yielding a delta of 135.3% in favor of the P2000. This metric is a raw measure of compute performance, reflecting the P2000’s superior FP32 throughput, memory bandwidth, and architectural efficiency. The P2000’s score more than doubles the GTX 770M’s, indicating that it can process roughly twice as many OpenCL operations per second. For users running GPU-accelerated applications like video encoding, physics simulation, or machine learning inference, this translates to near-halved processing times or the ability to handle larger, more complex workloads.

While no other head-to-head tests were conducted, the individual benchmark suites provide context. The P2000’s PassMark G3D score of 6956 and GPU Compute score of 2933 demonstrate strong overall graphics and compute capability. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 23566 suggests robust modern API performance. The GTX 770M’s Geekbench Metal score of 3448 is its only additional data point, indicating modest performance in Apple’s Metal API. The absence of DirectX benchmarks for the GTX 770M in the head-to-head data prevents a direct comparison in that domain, but the P2000’s scores across DirectX 9 (124), DirectX 10 (34), DirectX 11 (47), and DirectX 12 (28) show a pattern of declining performance with newer API versions, a typical trait for Pascal-era cards. The GTX 770M’s Kepler architecture, with its lower pixel rate and texture rate, would likely fare worse in these tests, though the data does not confirm this.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 offers 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 98.1% higher than the GTX 770M’s 1.530 TFLOPS, making it nearly twice as fast for single-precision compute tasks.

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

A: The Quadro P2000 achieves 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 770M provides 96.19 GB/s. This represents a 45.7% advantage for the P2000, despite its narrower 160-bit bus compared to the GTX 770M’s 192-bit bus.

Q: Can the GTX 770M match the P2000 in any benchmark?

A: In the only shared head-to-head test (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 770M scores 8552 against the P2000’s 20125, a 135.3% deficit. No benchmark in the data shows the GTX 770M winning or tying.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The P2000 supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 770M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The P2000 has a more complete DirectX 12 feature set and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro P2000 delivers 59.20 GPixel/s, compared to the GTX 770M’s 15.94 GPixel/s. This is a 271.4% advantage for the P2000, indicating significantly faster rasterization for high-resolution displays.

Q: Are there any form factor differences that matter?

A: The P2000 is a single-slot, 196 mm PCIe 3.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort outputs, while the GTX 770M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B interface and display outputs dependent on the portable device. The P2000 is more versatile for desktop workstations.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins decisively in every measurable compute and modern graphics category. Its 135.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the obvious choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications like scientific computing, video transcoding, and 3D rendering. The P2000’s 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth further cement its dominance in data-intensive workloads. Its support for DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 ensures compatibility with the latest game engines and graphics APIs, while its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable multi-monitor professional setups. The 5 GB memory capacity is 66.7% larger than the GTX 770M’s 3 GB, accommodating larger textures and datasets. For workstation users running CAD, DCC, or simulation software that leverages OpenCL, the P2000 is unequivocally superior.

The GTX 770M’s only potential advantage lies in legacy DirectX 9 scenarios, where its PassMark score of 124 in that specific test is notable. While the P2000’s DirectX 9 score is also 124, the GTX 770M’s older Kepler architecture may exhibit more predictable behavior with pre-2013 software that was optimized for that generation. Additionally, the GTX 770M’s MXM form factor is specifically designed for laptops and portable devices, making it the only choice for users with an MXM-B slot who require a discrete GPU upgrade. Its 24 ROPs and 80 TMUs, while lower in absolute terms, are configured for a different workload balance that may favor texture-heavy, low-resolution tasks. However, these advantages are narrow and largely overshadowed by the P2000’s overwhelming compute lead. In any modern workload, the P2000 is the clear winner, and the GTX 770M should only be considered for specialized legacy or form-factor-constrained applications.