Quadro 2000M vs Radeon HD 7770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7770 with Quadro 2000M, including specs and performance data.
HD 7770 outperforms 2000M by a whopping 180% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 604 | 890 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.43 | 0.28 |
| Power efficiency | 4.86 | 2.53 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | GF106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 February 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | $46.56 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD 7770 has 411% better value for money than Quadro 2000M.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.00 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.28 TFLOPS | 0.4224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 47
+194%
| 16−18
−194%
|
| Full HD | 46
+24.3%
| 37
−24.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.46
−175%
| 1.26
+175%
|
- Quadro 2000M has 175% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+135%
|
20−22
−135%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 128
+228%
|
35−40
−228%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+135%
|
20−22
−135%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| World of Tanks | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how HD 7770 and Quadro 2000M compete in popular games:
- HD 7770 is 194% faster in 900p
- HD 7770 is 24% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 7770 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7770 is ahead in 48 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.65 | 2.02 |
| Recency | 15 February 2012 | 13 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 55 Watt |
HD 7770 has a 179.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 2000M, on the other hand, has 45.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 2000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7770 is a desktop card while Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
