AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M: two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a clear, if narrow, winner in raw compute, but the underlying architectures tell a more nuanced story for anyone considering these parts in legacy systems.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it results in a win for the AMD Radeon R5 M230. The R5 M230 scores 4577, while the Quadro K3000M scores 4241. That is a delta of 7.9% in favor of AMD. This is not a dominant victory; it is a modest but consistent lead. In percentile terms, the R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the K3000M sits at the 25th percentile. Both are near the bottom quartile, but the AMD part is slightly less bottom-of-the-barrel.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this narrow gap. The R5 M230’s score of 4577 is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% of the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). It is 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621) and 1.1% behind the GeForce GTX 970M (4628). Essentially, the R5 M230 lands in a cluster of GPUs that are all within a couple of points of each other. The Quadro K3000M’s 4241 is similarly clustered: it is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268), 1% behind the GeForce GTX 460M (4282), and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295). The only rival it beats is the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which scores 4193, a 1.2% deficit for that card.

The practical takeaway: in OpenCL compute, the R5 M230 is roughly 8% faster than the K3000M. That is enough to notice in synthetic workloads, but not enough to change the character of either GPU. Both are entry-level performers by modern standards. The win count reflects this: the R5 M230 has one win, the K3000M has zero.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from opposing architectural schools. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 is built on GCN 1.0, using the Jet chip, and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. It is also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but the die is dramatically larger: 294 mm², packing 3,540 million transistors. Its density is nearly identical at 12.0M per mm².

The transistor count difference is stark — the K3000M has over five times as many transistors. Yet it loses the compute benchmark. This reflects how different the two designs are. The R5 M230 relies on a smaller, simpler chip with fewer resources but likely better efficiency per transistor in this specific workload. The K3000M’s GK104 is a much larger, more complex die, but it is running at lower clocks and may be limited by its older design.

Clock speeds also differ. The R5 M230 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The K3000M has a base and boost clock of 654 MHz, with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The K3000M’s memory is faster in effective terms, but the R5 M230’s memory clock is higher in raw MHz. The memory subsystems are otherwise completely different, which we will cover in the specification differences.

The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are end-of-life, but the R5 M230 released on 2014-01-06, while the K3000M released earlier on 2012-05-31. The R5 M230’s predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The K3000M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, which is 7.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s 4241.

Q: Are these GPUs equally outdated?

A: No. The R5 M230 released in 2014 and the K3000M in 2012. Both are end-of-life, but the R5 M230 is two years newer.

Q: Do they use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the R5 M230 has a 56 mm² die with 690 million transistors, while the K3000M has a 294 mm² die with 3,540 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M230 is 0.2% ahead of the Radeon RX 560 and 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530, but 0.9% behind the Quadro M3000M. The K3000M is 0.6% behind the Radeon Vega 3 and 1% behind the GTX 460M, but 1.2% ahead of the GTX 1050 Ti.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, compared to 320 on the AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The R5 M230 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB of DDR3 memory, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K3000M uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, delivering 89.60 GB/s — a 5.6x advantage in memory bandwidth. This is the largest single gap between the two.

Compute resources also favor the K3000M. It has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Consequently, the K3000M’s pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s for the R5 M230. The texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. The K3000M’s FP32 throughput is 753.4 GFLOPS, nearly double the R5 M230’s 390.4 GFLOPS.

The K3000M has a listed TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width, with no power connectors. The R5 M230 has no TDP listed and is described as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The K3000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The R5 M230’s transistor density is slightly higher at 12.3M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm².

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins the only benchmark available: Geekbench OpenCL. This suggests it has a slight edge in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, such as certain rendering, physics simulations, or video encoding workloads. Its newer release date (2014 vs 2012) means it benefits from a more recent architecture revision, even if the chip itself is smaller. For a laptop that is used primarily for light compute tasks, the R5 M230 is the safer bet.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins on paper in almost every other hardware specification. It has 80% more shading units, 2.4x more TMUs, and 4x more ROPs. Its memory bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s, which is more than five times the R5 M230’s 16.00 GB/s. Its pixel rate and texture rate are significantly higher, and its FP32 throughput is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS. If a workload is bound by memory bandwidth, texture fill, or raw shader throughput, the K3000M should theoretically pull ahead — even if the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that. The K3000M also has a higher effective memory speed at 2.8 Gbps versus 2 Gbps for the R5 M230.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the better choice for OpenCL compute performance. It wins the head-to-head benchmark by 7.9%, and it matches or beats its nearest rivals in that test. The R5 M230 also has a slightly newer API version for DirectX (11_1 vs 11_0) and a higher percentile ranking (27th vs 25th). For anyone who needs a GPU for OpenCL-based tasks in a legacy laptop, the R5 M230 is the data-backed pick.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is not a clear loser. Its specifications are dramatically superior in almost every category except the benchmark score. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, a wider memory bus, and far higher memory bandwidth. The fact that it loses the OpenCL benchmark despite these advantages suggests that the R5 M230’s GCN architecture is more efficient at this specific task, or that the K3000M is bottlenecked elsewhere. For workloads that are not OpenCL-bound — such as traditional 3D rendering that relies on pixel fill rate or texture throughput — the K3000M’s hardware resources indicate it should perform better. The 75 W TDP also suggests it is a more capable discrete part, whereas the R5 M230 is listed as an IGP.

The verdict depends on the workload. For OpenCL compute, pick the R5 M230. For memory-bandwidth-heavy or shader-heavy tasks, the K3000M’s hardware specs make it the logical choice, despite the benchmark loss. Both are end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof investment. The R5 M230 is newer and wins the only test, but the K3000M’s massive hardware lead in memory and compute resources means it should not be dismissed. If you have a system that supports either, match the GPU to the task — not to the marketing.