GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear generational split. The AMD Radeon 760M is the decisive winner in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, with the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M trailing by a wide margin. The Radeon 760M leads by 229.1% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 453.2% in Geekbench Vulkan. The average benchmark score for the Radeon 760M is 6019, while the Quadro K3100M averages 5154. The Radeon 760M also sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the Quadro's 30th percentile.

For a modern system builder, the Radeon 760M is the only sensible choice when comparing these two directly. Its performance class is closer to discrete desktop cards like the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (0.3% difference in average score) than to a legacy mobile workstation part. The Quadro K3100M, being an end-of-life product from 2013, is best suited for vintage or specialized legacy systems where its MXM form factor and specific driver ecosystem are required. The data does not support any scenario where the Quadro is the better pick for general use.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The AMD Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Navi III IGP generation and is an integrated graphics processor with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The transistor density is 142.6 million per mm².

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at the same foundry. It is a discrete mobile workstation GPU with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density is just 12.0 million per mm². This difference in process technology and transistor density is the root cause of the performance chasm observed in the benchmarks.

The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K3100M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Radeon also has Vulkan 1.4 support versus Vulkan 1.2.175 on the Quadro. The Radeon 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro. The NVIDIA part has no tensor cores either, while the AMD GPU lists no tensor cores but does include RT cores for ray tracing workloads.

The Radeon 760M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and uses system-shared memory. The Quadro K3100M is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and has dedicated GDDR5 memory. The Radeon's memory bandwidth is system dependent, whereas the Quadro has a fixed 102.4 GB/s across a 256-bit bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows two benchmark comparisons, both won by the AMD Radeon 760M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon scores 20255 against the Quadro's 6154, a delta of 229.1%. This is more than a threefold improvement in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL result reflects the Radeon's superior shader architecture and much higher clock speeds, even though the Quadro has more shading units (768 versus 512) and more TMUs (64 versus 32).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The Radeon 760M scores 30336, while the Quadro K3100M manages only 5484, a delta of 453.2%. This result is particularly telling because Vulkan is a modern low-level API. The Quadro's Kepler architecture was not designed for Vulkan-era workloads, and its ancient driver stack cannot extract comparable performance. The Radeon's 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against the Quadro's 1,084.4 GFLOPS explains much of this difference.

The Radeon 760M also posts a Passmark G3D score of 5310 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2840. The Quadro has no corresponding Passmark entries in the database, so direct comparisons in those workloads are not possible. However, the Geekbench results alone are sufficient to establish a dominant position for the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 4 nm for the Radeon 760M versus 28 nm for the Quadro K3100M. Transistor count is 25,390 million versus 3,540 million. Die size is 178 mm² versus 294 mm². The Radeon has a higher base clock at 800 MHz versus 706 MHz, and a much higher boost clock at 2599 MHz versus 706 MHz (the Quadro does not boost).

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon's memory clock is listed as system shared, whereas the Quadro runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective speed.

Compute resources differ: the Radeon has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the Radeon achieves much higher pixel and texture rates: 41.58 GPixel/s versus 11.30 GPixel/s, and 83.17 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 5.323 TFLOPS for the Radeon versus 1,084.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

The Radeon 760M supports FP16 at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro lists no FP16 capability. TDP is 15 W for the Radeon versus 75 W for the Quadro. The Radeon is an IGP with PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) interface. The Radeon is still active in production, while the Quadro is end-of-life. Release dates are January 2024 for the Radeon and July 2013 for the Quadro.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly five times the 1,084.4 GFLOPS of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M.

Q: Why does the Radeon 760M win by such a large margin in Vulkan?

A: The Radeon 760M scores 30336 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 5484 for the Quadro, a 453.2% difference. This is driven by the Radeon's modern RDNA 3.0 architecture and Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro uses the older Kepler architecture with Vulkan 1.2.175 support.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better driver and API support?

A: The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon also includes ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks.

Q: Is the Quadro K3100M still relevant for any workload?

A: The Quadro K3100M is end-of-life and only has Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan results in the database. Its average score of 5154 places it near the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (0.1% difference) and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (1.1% difference). It could serve legacy MXM-based systems, but the data shows no performance advantage over the Radeon 760M.

Q: How does the Radeon 760M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Radeon 760M has an average score of 6019, which is 0.3% above the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, and 0.4% above the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 by 0.5%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M wins in every recorded benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 20255 versus 6154 for the Quadro, a 229.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 30336 versus 5484, a 453.2% advantage. The Radeon also has a higher average benchmark score of 6019 versus 5154, and a higher percentile ranking at 35 versus 30.

The Radeon 760M is the clear winner for any compute-heavy workload using OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 41.58 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 83.17 GTexel/s texture rate make it suitable for modern rendering tasks. The 8 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects, a feature the Quadro cannot offer. Its 15 W TDP also makes it far more efficient, consuming only one-fifth the power of the Quadro's 75 W TDP.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has no recorded benchmark wins over the Radeon 760M. The only area where it holds any advantage is in memory configuration: it has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, which may be preferable in scenarios where system memory bandwidth is constrained. Its 768 shading units and 64 TMUs are numerically higher than the Radeon's 512 and 32, but the actual measured performance is far lower. The Quadro's MXM form factor could be an advantage in legacy mobile workstations that require that specific module type.

For a use-case split, the data suggests the Radeon 760M is the default choice for any modern task involving OpenCL or Vulkan compute. The Quadro K3100M is only relevant in legacy systems where its MXM form factor is required, and even then, its performance is dramatically inferior. The production status of each GPU reinforces this: the Radeon is active, while the Quadro is end-of-life.