AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M averages 5,444 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M averages 5,154 points. The AMD part sits roughly 5.6% higher overall, though the NVIDIA card’s percentile rank (30th) trails the AMD’s 32nd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins Geekbench OpenCL with 6,154 points versus 4,535 for the AMD Radeon 610M, a delta of -26.3% from the AMD’s perspective. That is a substantial margin, more than 1.35x the AMD score.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan, and what is the margin?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M wins Geekbench Vulkan with 6,353 points versus 5,484 for the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, a delta of 15.8% in AMD’s favor. This is the only benchmark where the AMD part leads, but the lead is clear.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU, and how close are they?

A: The Radeon 610M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467, -0.4%), followed by the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, -0.7%). The Quadro K3100M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161, -0.1%), with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M just 1.6% behind at 5,236.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel rate, and what does that imply?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has a pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s for the AMD Radeon 610M. Higher pixel throughput typically helps with fill-rate-bound scenes, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units and 64 TMUs, while the Radeon 610M has 128 shading units and 8 TMUs. The NVIDIA part’s sixfold shading-unit advantage is a key structural difference that explains its OpenCL lead.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 610M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Mendocino chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is 100 mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with a die size of 294 mm² and 3,540 million transistors. The transistor density for the NVIDIA part is listed as 12.0M / mm², while the AMD part does not report a transistor count or density.

The Radeon 610M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, while the Quadro K3100M is a discrete MXM module with a 75 W TDP. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, plus 2 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Memory configuration differs fundamentally. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part’s memory clock is listed as system shared, while the NVIDIA part runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The Radeon 610M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, whereas the Quadro K3100M uses MXM-B (3.0).

The Radeon 610M’s release date is September 19, 2022, with a predecessor of Vega II IGP and a successor of Navi III IGP. The Quadro K3100M was released July 22, 2013, with a predecessor of Quadro Fermi-M and a successor of Quadro Maxwell-M. Both are end-of-life products. The AMD part’s FP32 throughput is 486.4 GFLOPS, with FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1). The NVIDIA part’s FP32 is 1,084.4 GFLOPS, with no FP16 figure listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head benchmarks exactly one win each, which makes the comparison particularly interesting because the wins go in opposite directions. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 against the AMD Radeon 610M’s 4,535, a delta of -26.3% for AMD. The NVIDIA part’s advantage here is roughly 1.36x, driven by its much larger shading unit count (768 vs 128) and dedicated memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs system dependent). The Quadro K3100M’s texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s for the Radeon 610M further explains the gap in compute-oriented workloads.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The AMD Radeon 610M scores 6,353 against 5,484 for the Quadro K3100M, a delta of 15.8% in AMD’s favor. This is notable because the Radeon 610M is an IGP with shared system memory, yet it outpaces a discrete Kepler part with GDDR5 in a modern graphics API. The RDNA 2.0 architecture’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, versus the Kepler’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, likely contributes to the AMD part’s stronger Vulkan showing.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the split. The Radeon 610M averages 5,444, which sits 0.4% below the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5,467) and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5,416). The Quadro K3100M averages 5,154, which is 0.1% below the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161) and 1.8% above the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5,063). The percentile ranks are close: the Radeon 610M is at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3100M is at the 30th.

The texture and pixel rates tell a clear story about raw throughput. The Quadro K3100M’s 11.30 GPixel/s pixel rate is 48.7% higher than the Radeon 610M’s 7.600 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s is nearly three times the Radeon’s 15.20 GTexel/s. These figures align with the NVIDIA part’s OpenCL win, where compute and fill-rate tasks dominate. The Radeon 610M’s FP16 support (972.8 GFLOPS) is double its FP32 rate, but the Quadro K3100M has no listed FP16 capability, which may matter for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 6 nm for AMD versus 28 nm for NVIDIA, a generation gap that reflects the 2022 versus 2013 release dates. Die size is 100 mm² for the Radeon 610M versus 294 mm² for the Quadro K3100M. The NVIDIA part reports 3,540 million transistors and a density of 12.0M / mm²; the AMD part reports neither.

Clock speeds: the Radeon 610M runs at 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost, while the Quadro K3100M runs at 706 MHz base and 706 MHz boost. The AMD part’s boost clock is 2.7x higher than the NVIDIA’s fixed clock. Memory differs completely: the Radeon 610M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro K3100M has 4 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus, and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), while the AMD memory clock is listed as system shared.

Compute units: the Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores. The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s for AMD versus 11.30 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s. FP32 is 486.4 GFLOPS for AMD versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 972.8 GFLOPS for AMD, with no figure for NVIDIA.

Power and form factor: the Radeon 610M has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP, while the Quadro K3100M has a 75 W TDP and is an MXM module. Neither uses power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA. API support: AMD has DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while NVIDIA has DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 610M wins decisively in Vulkan, with a 15.8% lead over the Quadro K3100M. This suggests the RDNA 2.0 architecture, with its modern API support and higher clock speeds, is better suited to current-generation graphics workloads that leverage Vulkan’s low-level features. The Radeon 610M also has the higher average benchmark score (5,444 vs 5,154) and the better percentile rank (32nd vs 30th). Its 6 nm process and 15 W TDP make it a far more power-efficient option, and its ray tracing cores provide hardware support that the Kepler part lacks entirely. For users running Vulkan-based applications or modern DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, the data points clearly to the AMD part.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in OpenCL by a wide margin, scoring 6,154 versus 4,535, a 26.3% gap. Its 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs provide substantially more raw compute and fill-rate capacity than the Radeon 610M’s 128 shaders, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The dedicated 102.4 GB/s GDDR5 bandwidth is another structural advantage for memory-heavy compute tasks. The pixel rate (11.30 GPixel/s) and texture rate (45.18 GTexel/s) are both far higher than the AMD part’s figures. For OpenCL compute workloads, especially those that are not graphics-API-bound, the Quadro K3100M is the stronger performer according to the benchmark data.

The split is clean: modern graphics APIs favor the Radeon 610M, while traditional compute APIs favor the Quadro K3100M. The average scores suggest the AMD part has a slight overall edge, but the margin is small (5.6%) and driven entirely by the Vulkan result. The NVIDIA part’s OpenCL win is larger in absolute terms, but it does not compensate for the Vulkan deficit when averaging the two tests.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload type. For users prioritizing Vulkan performance, the AMD Radeon 610M is the pick. Its 15.8% Vulkan lead, higher average score, and superior API support (Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.2.175, DirectX 12 Ultimate vs 12 (11_0)) make it the modern option. The 6 nm process and 15 W TDP also make it dramatically more power-efficient than the Quadro K3100M’s 75 W TDP, which matters for portable devices where both GPUs are found.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the pick. Its 26.3% OpenCL lead is the single largest margin in the head-to-head comparison. The 768 shading units and 102.4 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth give it a structural advantage that the Radeon 610M cannot overcome in that API. The higher pixel and texture rates also make it better suited to fill-rate-bound rendering tasks.

The benchmark results indicate that neither GPU dominates the other outright. The Radeon 610M wins one test, the Quadro K3100M wins the other, and the average scores are separated by less than 6%. The deciding factor is the application. Users running modern graphics APIs should choose the AMD part, while those running compute-heavy OpenCL workloads should choose the NVIDIA part. For general-purpose use with a mix of workloads, the Radeon 610M’s higher average score and better percentile rank give it a slight edge, but the margin is narrow enough that specific application requirements should be the final arbiter.