GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 Graphics and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The benchmark data clearly favors the AMD part, which delivers a 39.4% higher OpenCL score than the NVIDIA Quadro. The Radeon R5 Graphics achieves an average benchmark score of 3883, placing it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3718, sitting in the 22nd percentile. Despite the narrow overall percentile gap, the head-to-head result is decisive, with the AMD IGP outperforming the older NVIDIA discrete module by a substantial margin in the single available comparison test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has an average benchmark score of 3883, which is 165 points higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's average score of 3718.

Q: How large is the performance difference in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 versus the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 3718, resulting in a 39.4% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU according to benchmark data?

A: The Radeon R5 Graphics is most closely matched with the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, which has an average score of 3898 (a 0.4% difference). The Quadro 3000M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, with an average score of 3717 (a 0% difference).

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm process fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan API?

A: Only the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports Vulkan (version 1.2.170). The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is built on the GCN 2.0 architecture, specifically the "Spectre SL" chip, and is classified as a GCN 2.0 IGP from the Kaveri generation. It utilizes a 28 nm process node at GlobalFoundries and integrates 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M employs the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, belonging to the Quadro Fermi-M generation. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,950 million transistors spread across a larger 332 mm² die. The transistor density highlights the AMD advantage: the Radeon R5 packs 9.8 million transistors per mm², while the Quadro 3000M manages only 5.9 million per mm².

The compute configurations differ significantly in structure. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics features 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and only 4 render output units (ROPs). The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, a substantially higher texture and pixel throughput capacity. The AMD part delivers a pixel rate of 3.032 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 12.13 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part achieves 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s respectively. However, in raw FP32 compute, the Quadro 3000M leads with 432.0 GFLOPS versus the Radeon R5's 388.1 GFLOPS.

The fundamental architectural split is the integration approach: the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with system-shared memory, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is a discrete MXM module with its own VRAM. The AMD part also supports a newer DirectX version (12_0 versus 11_0) and Vulkan, which the NVIDIA part lacks entirely. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The production timelines reflect this gap, with the AMD part releasing in September 2014 and the NVIDIA part in February 2011, making the Radeon R5 a successor to TeraScale 3 IGP while the Quadro 3000M follows Quadro FX Mobile and precedes Quadro Kepler-M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is geekbench_opencl, and it produces a clear winner. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This represents a 39.4% delta favoring the AMD part, a substantial margin that dwarfs the differences seen in either GPU's nearest rival comparisons. For context, the Radeon R5's closest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, is only 0.4% away from its average score, and the Quadro 3000M's closest rival, the GeForce GT 740M, is exactly 0% away. The 39.4% head-to-head gap is thus far larger than any of the near-neighbor margins, indicating a genuine generational and architectural performance leap rather than a marginal statistical fluctuation.

This benchmark result is particularly notable because the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M holds theoretical advantages in several raw specifications. The Quadro 3000M has a higher FP32 throughput (432.0 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS), a higher pixel rate (4.500 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s), and a higher texture rate (18.00 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s). It also has 8 times the ROP count (32 versus 4) and more than double the TMU count (40 versus 16). Yet in the OpenCL workload, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics still wins decisively. This suggests that the Radeon R5's newer GCN 2.0 architecture, combined with its 2,410 million transistors and higher transistor density, delivers superior compute efficiency per clock or per watt despite having fewer processing resources in certain areas.

The only benchmark where the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a listed result is geekbench_opencl (3718), and it has no Vulkan benchmark entry. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics also has a geekbench_vulkan score of 2582, though no head-to-head Vulkan comparison exists because the NVIDIA part lacks Vulkan support. The win count stands at 1-0 in favor of AMD, with the Radeon R5 Graphics taking the sole comparative test.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, achieving a density of 9.8M/mm². The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm TSMC process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding 5.9M/mm². The AMD part has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, while the NVIDIA part has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth that is system dependent. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with a fixed 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The TDP also diverges sharply: the AMD IGP is rated at 15 W, while the NVIDIA MXM module draws 75 W, a 5x difference.

The form factors reflect their intended use. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is an IGP with a slot width of "IGP" and a bus interface of "IGP," meaning it is integrated into the motherboard. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0) and no power connectors required. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the AMD part and portable device dependent for the NVIDIA part.

API support differs in key ways. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a lower feature level, and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The release dates are separated by over three years: the AMD part launched on September 16, 2014, while the NVIDIA part launched on February 21, 2011. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL, delivering a 39.4% higher score than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M. It also wins on architecture modernity, process efficiency, transistor density, and API support, specifically DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan. Its 15 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient than the Quadro 3000M's 75 W rating, which is a critical advantage for integrated mobile graphics. The Radeon R5 also has a higher average benchmark score (3883 versus 3718) and a higher percentile ranking (23rd versus 22nd).

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins on specification-level throughput metrics. It has higher pixel rate (4.500 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (18.00 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 compute (432.0 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS). It also has significantly more ROPs (32 versus 4) and TMUs (40 versus 16), which could benefit certain rasterization-heavy workloads. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is another advantage over the AMD part's system-shared memory, which has system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro 3000M also has a larger die size (332 mm² versus 245 mm²), which may indicate more physical resources for specific tasks.

In terms of nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics sits within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 and within 1.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, indicating it competes with entry-level discrete GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M sits within 0.6% of the GeForce GT 635M and within 1.9% of the AMD Radeon HD 6770, showing it occupies a similar performance class despite its older architecture. The data shows that the AMD part's benchmark wins are decisive, while the NVIDIA part's wins are purely theoretical on paper.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the superior GPU for compute workloads. Its 39.4% OpenCL advantage over the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is a dominant margin, and it also holds wins in average benchmark score, percentile ranking, process efficiency, and API support. The Radeon R5 achieves this with a 15 W TDP versus the Quadro 3000M's 75 W, a 5x power efficiency advantage that makes it the clear choice for any system where thermal or power constraints matter. Anyone selecting between these two for general compute or modern API support should pick the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics without hesitation.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's only advantages are in raw specification metrics like pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and dedicated memory bandwidth. These could theoretically benefit specific rasterization or memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but no benchmark data in the pack confirms this advantage translates to real-world wins. The Quadro 3000M also has no Vulkan support and older DirectX 11_0 feature level, limiting its compatibility with modern graphics APIs.

For users prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, and power efficiency, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the definitive choice. For users who need dedicated VRAM with fixed bandwidth and potentially higher raw fill rates, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M offers those specific characteristics, but the lack of benchmark validation makes this a speculative pick. The overall data favors AMD decisively, with a 1-0 win count in head-to-head testing and a 39.4% margin that leaves little room for debate.