GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, despite being an integrated processor, delivers a decisive victory in the only head-to-head benchmark available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241. This represents an 18.2% advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin that flips the expected narrative of a dedicated mobile workstation GPU outperforming an IGP.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, however, is not without its own merits. Its average benchmark score of 4241 places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics sits at the 23rd percentile. The Quadro's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 3, scores 4268, a delta of -0.6%, indicating the Quadro is essentially performance-equivalent to that newer integrated solution. Against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, the Quadro is 1.2% ahead, a negligible margin that suggests the older Kepler chip still holds its own in raw compute tasks.

Who should pick which? For workloads that leverage OpenCL compute, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the clear winner based on its 18.2% lead. The data shows it is not merely competitive but decisively faster in this specific metric. However, the Quadro K3000M's 25th percentile ranking, combined with its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, suggests it remains a viable option for scenarios where the system's shared memory architecture of the AMD part might become a bottleneck. The AMD part's performance is "System Dependent," meaning its results are contingent on the host system's memory configuration, whereas the Quadro has fixed, dedicated resources.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in a controlled environment, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the data-backed choice. For those needing a discrete GPU with its own memory pool and a slightly higher percentile ranking, the Quadro K3000M remains a defensible, albeit older, option. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a workload-specific one.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183, which is 18.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's score of 4241.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M compare to the AMD Radeon Vega 3?

A: The Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268. This represents a delta of -0.6%, meaning the Quadro is marginally slower than the Vega 3.

Q: What is the difference in pixel fill rate between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s, which is more than double the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics' 3.032 GPixel/s.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics support any benchmarks that the Quadro does not?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2582. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has no Vulkan benchmark score listed in the data.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics' average score compare to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has an average score of 3883, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The delta is -0.4%, indicating the AMD part is slightly slower on average.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 3,540 million transistors, which is substantially higher than the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics' 2,410 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, reflecting their different design philosophies and target applications. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip. It is a discrete mobile workstation GPU manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm².

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the GCN 2.0 architecture, codenamed Spectre SL. It is manufactured by GlobalFoundries, also on a 28 nm process. The AMD chip houses 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, resulting in a lower transistor density of 9.8M per mm². This is a fundamental difference: the Quadro is a dedicated chip with its own resources, while the R5 Graphics is part of a larger accelerated processing unit (APU) design.

The feature sets diverge significantly. The Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level, while the NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version. The process node is identical at 28 nm, but the foundries differ: TSMC for NVIDIA and GlobalFoundries for AMD.

The memory architecture is where the designs diverge most sharply. The Quadro K3000M has a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a fixed bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the AMD part's performance is directly tied to the host system's memory, whereas the Quadro operates with predictable, dedicated resources. The Quadro's pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s and texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s dwarf the AMD part's 3.032 GPixel/s and 12.13 GTexel/s, reflecting the discrete GPU's larger complement of 32 ROPs and 48 TMUs versus the AMD's 4 ROPs and 16 TMUs.

Specification Differences

The specification table highlights the fundamental differences between a discrete mobile workstation GPU and an integrated processor. The most obvious distinction is the memory subsystem. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has system-shared memory with no fixed specifications.

The compute resources differ by a wide margin. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. This translates to a significant performance gap in fill-rate bound tasks.

Clock speeds are also a differentiator. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a base and boost clock of 654 MHz, with memory clocked at 2.8 Gbps effective. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has no base or boost clock listed, and its memory clock is "System Shared." The Quadro's FP32 performance is 753.4 GFLOPS, while the AMD part delivers 388.1 GFLOPS.

Power consumption tells a story of efficiency versus capability. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a TDP of just 15 W and is an IGP with no slot width or power connector specifications. The Quadro is a power-hungry discrete solution; the AMD part is designed for low-power integration.

The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the AMD part is an IGP directly on the motherboard. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro and "Motherboard Dependent" for the AMD part. The Quadro's release date is 2012-05-31, while the AMD part came later on 2014-09-16. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a clear verdict. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics wins with a score of 5183, defeating the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's score of 4241 by 18.2%. This is a substantial margin, particularly given the architectural differences.

The AMD part's victory is notable because it achieves this despite having fewer shading units (256 vs. 576), lower FP32 throughput (388.1 GFLOPS vs. 753.4 GFLOPS), and a much lower TDP (15 W vs. 75 W). The benchmark results indicate that the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics' GCN 2.0 architecture is significantly more efficient at executing OpenCL workloads than the older Kepler-based Quadro. The data suggests that raw compute resources do not directly translate to benchmark success; architectural efficiency and driver optimization play a larger role in this specific test.

However, the average benchmark scores present a different perspective. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has an average score of 4241, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has an average score of 3883. This means the Quadro performs better on average across all its benchmarks, even though it loses the single head-to-head OpenCL test. The AMD part's average is dragged down by its lack of a second benchmark result, but the data shows that its Vulkan score of 2582 is far lower than its OpenCL score of 5183.

The nearest rival data reinforces the competitive landscape. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics' average score of 3883 puts it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898) and 0.9% of the Quadro K2000D (3919). It leads the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 by 1.3%. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, with its average of 4241, sits in a slightly higher performance tier, trailing the AMD Radeon Vega 3 by just 0.6% and the GeForce GTX 460M by 1%, while leading the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1.2%.

In summary, the head-to-head data tells a story of specialization. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is the clear winner in the single OpenCL test, demonstrating a 18.2% advantage. Yet the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M holds a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking (25th vs. 23rd). The choice between them depends entirely on whether the user prioritizes peak OpenCL performance or consistent average performance across a broader suite of tests.