Radeon HD 6670 vs Quadro K2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000 with Radeon HD 6670, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2000
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.09
+118%

K2000 outperforms HD 6670 by a whopping 118% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking685905
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.360.08
Power efficiency5.551.97
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGK107Turks
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)19 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K2000 has 350% better value for money than HD 6670.

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 cores384480
Core clock speed954 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million716 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt66 Watt
Texture fill rate30.5319.20
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.768 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3224

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length202 mm168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1050 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s64 GB/s

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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)DirectX® 11
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+-
CUDA3.0-

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.

Quadro K2000 4.09
+118%
HD 6670 1.88

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.

Quadro K2000 1580
+118%
HD 6670 726

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.09 1.88
Recency 1 March 2013 19 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 66 Watt

Quadro K2000 has a 117.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 29.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6670 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 6670 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K2000
Quadro K2000
AMD Radeon HD 6670
Radeon HD 6670

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 212 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 855 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6670 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.