Quadro FX 1700 vs Radeon HD 6770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6770 with Quadro FX 1700, including specs and performance data.
HD 6770 outperforms FX 1700 by a whopping 514% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 790 | 1276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.52 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.12 | 0.89 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Juniper | G84 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 21 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 12 September 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
HD 6770 and FX 1700 have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 800 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 460 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 42 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 34.00 | 7.360 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.36 TFLOPS | 0.05888 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
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 support | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 198 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 3.01 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 21 January 2011 | 12 September 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 42 Watt |
HD 6770 has a 514.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1700, on the other hand, has 157.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1700 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6770 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 1700 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
