NVIDIA Quadro K2000M vs AMD Radeon HD 6670

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K2000M and AMD Radeon HD 6670 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 1 month(s) later
• Around 24% higher texture fill rate: 23.84 GTexel / s vs 19.2 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 20% lower typical power consumption: 55 Watt vs 66 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 71% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1050 MHz
• Around 39% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1011 vs 727
• Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 256 vs 244
• Around 62% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3076 vs 1899
• Around 67% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.142 vs 4.861
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 262.321 vs 235.463
• Around 60% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.741 vs 0.463
• Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 16.571 vs 15.918
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1726 vs 1564
• Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1726 vs 1564

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6670

• Around 25% higher pipelines: 480 vs 384
• Around 34% better floating-point performance: 768.0 gflops vs 572.2 gflops
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 38.551 vs 18.406
• Around 48% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3260 vs 2207
• Around 48% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3260 vs 2207

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6670

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1011 727
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	256 244
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	3076 1899
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.142 4.861
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	262.321 235.463
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.741 0.463
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	16.571 15.918
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	18.406 38.551
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1726 1564
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2207 3260
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3351 3348
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1726 1564
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2207 3260
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3351 3348

Compare specifications (specs)