AMD Radeon R5 Graphics vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records only two shared tests between the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the Quadro M3000M is the decisive winner, and the margins are not subtle.

Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, while the Radeon R5 Graphics manages 5,183. That is a delta of 221.2% in favor of the NVIDIA part. To put the gap in perspective, the Radeon R5 Graphics sits at roughly one third of the Quadro's compute throughput in this workload. The OpenCL test typically exercises raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, and the data reflects the massive disparity in hardware resources: 1,024 shading units versus 256, and 160.4 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth versus a system-shared memory configuration.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The Quadro M3000M posts 16,668, whereas the Radeon R5 Graphics scores just 2,582. The delta here is 545.5%, meaning the Quadro delivers over six times the performance of the AMD integrated part. Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose inefficiencies in driver overhead and hardware scheduling, so a gap this large suggests the Radeon R5 Graphics is not merely slower, it is operating in a fundamentally different performance tier. The Quadro's score is also remarkably consistent between OpenCL and Vulkan (16,646 versus 16,668), indicating that its Maxwell 2.0 architecture scales well across different compute interfaces. The Radeon, by contrast, drops from 5,183 in OpenCL to 2,582 in Vulkan, a 50% regression that points to driver or hardware limitations in the GCN 2.0 IGP implementation.

The overall win count is 2 for the Quadro M3000M and 0 for the Radeon R5 Graphics. There is no benchmark in the shared set where the AMD part comes out ahead. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 4,621, placing it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon R5 Graphics averages 3,883, which lands at the 23rd percentile. While the percentile difference is only 4 points, the raw score gap is 738 points, or roughly 19% of the Radeon's average.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The Quadro M3000M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, which averages 4,628, a delta of -0.1%. That puts the Quadro essentially on par with a well-known gaming laptop GPU from the same era. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB both average 4,657, putting them 0.8% ahead of the Quadro, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 sits 1% behind at 4,577. These are all very tight margins, suggesting the Quadro M3000M is a mid-pack mobile discrete GPU. Meanwhile, the Radeon R5 Graphics' nearest rivals are all older NVIDIA Quadro workstation cards: the Quadro 2000 at 3,898 (-0.4%), the Quadro K2000D at 3,919 (-0.9%), and the Quadro 2000D at 3,930 (-1.2%). The GeForce MX110 is 1.3% behind at 3,834. The Radeon R5 Graphics is thus clustered with entry-level discrete GPUs from a previous generation, not with anything resembling a modern gaming or workstation part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M averages 4,621, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics averages 3,883. The Quadro leads by 738 points.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 2,582 for the Radeon R5 Graphics. That is a 545.5% delta in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 Graphics win any shared benchmark?

A: No. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the Radeon R5 Graphics wins 0 out of 2.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Quadro M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding 13.1M transistors per mm². The Radeon R5 Graphics has 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, yielding 9.8M per mm².

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Quadro M3000M is 0.1% behind the GeForce GTX 970M (4,628) and 0.8% behind both the Radeon R5 M320 and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4,657). The Radeon R5 Graphics is 0.4% behind the Quadro 2000 (3,898) and 0.9% behind the Quadro K2000D (3,919).

Q: What is the memory situation for each?

A: The Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins every recorded benchmark. There is no workload in the shared test set where the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics comes out ahead. That said, the nature of the wins matters for use-case analysis.

The Quadro M3000M is built for compute-heavy tasks. Its OpenCL score of 16,646 and Vulkan score of 16,668 are nearly identical, indicating balanced performance across different API environments. This makes it suitable for applications that leverage general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 59.14 GTexel/s texture rate support this interpretation. The dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth means it can handle large datasets without competing with the CPU for memory access.

The Radeon R5 Graphics, by contrast, is an integrated part with system-shared memory. Its 388.1 GFLOPS FP32 is roughly 20% of the Quadro's compute throughput. The 12.13 GTexel/s texture rate and 3.032 GPixel/s pixel rate are both far below the Quadro's figures. The only scenario where the Radeon R5 Graphics could be considered preferable is one where its 15 W TDP is a hard constraint. The Quadro M3000M draws 75 W, which is five times higher. For a system that must operate on very limited power, such as a thin-and-light laptop or a fanless design, the Radeon's lower power draw is the only measurable advantage. However, the database does not record any benchmark where that power advantage translates into a performance win.

For gaming, the Quadro's Passmark scores offer some insight. It records 98 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, and 23 in DirectX 12, with a G3D score of 5,543. The Radeon R5 Graphics has no recorded DirectX benchmarks, so a direct comparison is impossible. But given the massive OpenCL and Vulkan gaps, it is reasonable to infer that the Quadro would dominate in any DirectX workload as well, though the database does not confirm this.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification except for process node. Both are built on a 28 nm process, but the Quadro M3000M uses TSMC as the foundry, while the Radeon R5 Graphics uses GlobalFoundries.

The Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The Radeon R5 Graphics has 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, with a density of 9.8M per mm². The Quadro's die is 62% larger in area and holds more than double the transistors.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Quadro has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost clock of 924 MHz, with memory running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Radeon R5 Graphics has no recorded base or boost clocks, and its memory clock is listed as "System Shared," meaning it depends on the host system's RAM.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 Graphics uses system-shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent. This means the Radeon's memory performance is entirely contingent on the CPU's memory subsystem, which is typically a disadvantage for integrated graphics.

The compute units are also very different. The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R5 Graphics has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. These are 4x, 4x, and 8x differences respectively. The pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 3.032 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and the texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s.

Power consumption is a key differentiator. The Quadro is rated at 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors. The Radeon R5 Graphics is rated at 15 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width or power connector specifications.

The API support differs slightly. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version give it additional compatibility headroom.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is based on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics is based on the Spectre SL chip using the GCN 2.0 architecture, belonging to the GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) generation.

The process nodes are identical at 28 nm, but the foundries differ: TSMC for NVIDIA and GlobalFoundries for AMD. The transistor density is higher on the NVIDIA chip (13.1M per mm² versus 9.8M per mm²), indicating a more compact layout despite the larger absolute transistor count.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Quadro uses dedicated GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon relies on system-shared memory. This means the Quadro's memory bandwidth is fixed at 160.4 GB/s, whereas the Radeon's bandwidth is "System Dependent" and will vary with the host CPU's memory configuration.

The compute architecture differs in scale. The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. This 4x to 8x difference in execution resources explains the performance gap. The Quadro also has a significantly higher pixel rate (29.57 GPixel/s versus 3.032 GPixel/s) and texture rate (59.14 GTexel/s versus 12.13 GTexel/s).

Both chips are end-of-life in production status, but their release dates differ. The Quadro M3000M was released on 2015-08-17, while the Radeon R5 Graphics was released on 2014-09-16, nearly a year earlier. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The Radeon's predecessor is the TeraScale 3 IGP, and its successor is the GCN 3.0 IGP.

The bus interface also differs. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which provides a dedicated high-bandwidth connection. The Radeon uses an IGP bus interface, meaning it communicates through the motherboard's integrated memory controller. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro and "Motherboard Dependent" for the Radeon, reflecting their intended deployment in laptops versus integrated desktop or mobile platforms.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. The 221.2% OpenCL lead and 545.5% Vulkan lead are not marginal differences; they represent entirely different performance tiers. The Quadro's 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 160.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 1,024 shading units place it in the field of capable discrete GPUs. The Radeon R5 Graphics, with 388.1 GFLOPS and 256 shading units, is an entry-level integrated solution.

For a user who needs compute performance, whether for professional applications, rendering, or any GPU-accelerated workload, the Quadro M3000M is the only sensible choice. Its average benchmark score of 4,621 puts it in the same league as the GeForce GTX 970M and the Radeon R5 M320, which are both discrete mobile GPUs. The Radeon R5 Graphics, averaging 3,883, sits among older Quadro 2000-series workstation cards, which are now several generations behind.

The one scenario where the Radeon R5 Graphics holds an advantage is power consumption. At 15 W, it uses one fifth of the Quadro's 75 W TDP. For a system where power efficiency is the primary constraint, the Radeon might be preferable, but the performance cost is severe. The Quadro also has a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), which may matter for compatibility with newer titles or applications.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Quadro M3000M for performance, and only consider the Radeon R5 Graphics if power draw is an absolute limitation. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.