Radeon HD 7770 vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	442	602
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.64	1.45
Power efficiency	9.47	4.84
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GM206	Cape Verde
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	15 February 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$437.75	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro M2000 has 151% better value for money than HD 7770.

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	768	640
Core clock speed	796 MHz	1000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,940 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	40.00
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	1.28 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	48	40

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	201 mm	210 mm
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin

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	128 Bit	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	72 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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	4x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	5.2	-

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 M2000 10.35
+83.5%

HD 7770 5.64

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 M2000 3986
+83.5%

HD 7770 2172

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	85−90 +80.9%	47 −80.9%
Full HD	80−85 +73.9%	46 −73.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

5.47

3.46

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and HD 7770 compete in popular games:

Quadro M2000 is 81% faster in 900p
Quadro M2000 is 74% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 69 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.35	5.64
Recency	8 April 2016	15 February 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt

Quadro M2000 has a 83.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 6.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7770 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 7770 is a desktop one.

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