AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 occupy very different corners of the mobile graphics market, despite both being end-of-life products aimed at laptops. One is a professional mobile workstation part built on a large, complex die, while the other is a low-power integrated-class solution designed for everyday notebooks. The benchmark data in the database shows a clear gap in compute performance, but the reasons for that gap, and what each GPU offers in context, are worth investigating.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins that test outright. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 while the Radeon R5 M230 scores 4,577. That is a 34.5% advantage for NVIDIA. This is the only direct comparison available, and it establishes the Quadro K3100M as the stronger compute performer in a pure numbers contest.

For the AMD Radeon R5 M230, there is no benchmark where it beats the Quadro K3100M in any available test. Its sole recorded score is, again, the Geekbench OpenCL result of 4,577, which is far behind the NVIDIA part. However, the R5 M230's identity is not about winning against professional parts. The Radeon R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database, placing it slightly below the Quadro K3100M, which is at the 30th percentile. The R5 M230's average benchmark score is 4,577, matching its OpenCL score. Interesting context, its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 560, which scores 4,569 and is 0.2% faster, alongside Intel HD Graphics P530, scoring 4,560, 0.4% faster, and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, at 4,621, 0.9% faster. The Quadro K3100M's own nearest rivals, by contrast, include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5,069, 1.8% faster, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5,211, 1.1% faster.

So the data implies that the R5 M230 trades blows with integrated and older parts, while the Quadro K3100M competes in a higher tier. where wins are measured in single percentage points against competitors like the GeForce GTX 760M, at 5,236, 1.6% faster, and AMD Radeon R7 240, 5,063, 1.8% faster, though these are based on its average score of 5,154. The R5 M230, with its 4,577 average, is closer to the R7 240 at 4,569 and the RX 560 at 4,569 and the GTX 970M at 4,628, 1.1% faster, and the Quadro M3000M at 4,621, 0.9%, than the K3100M is to the R7 240. The R5 M230 is a part that 27th percentile placement in the database landscape, while the K3100M is 30th, but the R5 M230 trails the K3100M by 34.5% in OpenCL, a larger gap than its own 1.1% delta to the Quadro 4000M. In terms of wins, the K3100M takes 1 win in the head-to-head, and the R5 M230 has 0 wins.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two is enormous. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip, which is built on the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the Jet chip, based on GCN 1.0, from the Gem System generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, which is where the similarities begin and end quickly.

The transistor counts tell the story of scale. The Quadro K3100M packs 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm². The Radeon R5 M230 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 12.0 million per mm² for NVIDIA versus 12.3 million per mm² for AMD. This means the Quadro K3100M is not using a denser process; it is simply a much larger chip with over five times the transistors. The R5 M230 is a tiny, efficient chip, while the K3100M is a full-fledged discrete GPU.

Feature sets diverge significantly. The Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both have no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The R5 M230 has a higher DirectX feature level, 11_1 versus 11_0, which is a small but real API advantage for AMD. The NVIDIA part has a slightly newer Vulkan version.

The bus interfaces also separate them. The Quadro K3100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, a modular, replaceable mobile workstation format. The Radeon R5 M230 is listed as an IGP, integrated graphics processor, with a PCIe 3.0 x8 connection. This confirms the R5 M230 is a low-power, integrated-class part, not designed for high-end workloads. The Quadro K3100M has a TDP of 75 W, while the R5 M230 has no TDP listed in the database, though its IGP classification implies a much lower power envelope. The K3100M requires no power connectors, and both have display outputs described as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5,154, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 has an average benchmark score of 4,577.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 and the R5 M230 scores 4,577, giving the NVIDIA part a 34.5% lead in that single head-to-head benchmark.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M230 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro K3100M has a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm², while the R5 M230 has a density of 12.3 million per mm², making them nearly identical despite the huge difference in total transistors.

Q: What is the release date of each product?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M was released on July 22, 2013, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 was released on January 6, 2014.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals a stark contrast in nearly every measurable category. The Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture, while the R5 M230 uses the Jet chip on GCN 1.0. The process node is identical, 28 nm from TSMC, but the physical size differs massively: 294 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor count is 3,540 million versus 690 million.

Memory is a major differentiator. The Quadro K3100M offers 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M230 offers 2 GB of DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 6.4x difference in memory bandwidth. The clock speeds are listed differently: the K3100M has a base and boost clock of 706 MHz, while the R5 M230 has no base or boost clock listed. The K3100M memory runs at 800 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective, while the R5 M230 memory runs at 1000 MHz, 2 Gbps effective.

Compute resources also diverge. The K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS. The TDP is 75 W for the K3100M, with no TDP listed for the R5 M230. The K3100M uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the R5 M230 is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x8. The K3100M has no power connectors, and the R5 M230 has no power connector data. The K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R5 M230 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6,154, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4,577. The winner is the Quadro K3100M, with a delta of 34.5%. This is a decisive margin, and it aligns with the underlying hardware differences. The K3100M has more than double the shading units, over three times the texture units, four times the ROPs, and 6.4 times the memory bandwidth. The FP32 throughput of 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS is a 2.8x advantage for NVIDIA, which is roughly consistent with the 34.5% OpenCL score gap. The OpenCL test does not fully translate the theoretical compute advantage into the real-world score, but the direction is clear.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the gap. The Quadro K3100M's average score of 5,154 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5,161, and within 1.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5,211. It is also close to the GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236, which is 1.6% faster. The R5 M230's average score of 4,577 is within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4,569, which is a much more powerful desktop GPU, but the R5 M230 is also within 0.4% of Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4,560. The R5 M230's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4,621, is 0.9% faster, and the GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 is 1.1% faster. The data shows the R5 M230 is grouped with older or lower-end parts, while the K3100M is grouped with mid-range mobile parts.

The percentile data tells a similar story. The K3100M is at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and the R5 M230 is at the 27th percentile. That is only a 3-percentile difference, which is surprisingly small given the 34.5% OpenCL gap. It suggests that the database's overall GPU landscape has many entries clustered in the lower performance tiers, and both of these parts are near the bottom of the distribution. The K3100M, despite being a professional part, is not a top performer in modern terms. The R5 M230 is even lower, but not by a huge margin in percentile terms.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the faster GPU in every measured category. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, has a higher average score, higher percentile, more shading units, more memory, and dramatically higher memory bandwidth. For anyone comparing these two based purely on the database measurements, the K3100M is the obvious choice for compute workloads, OpenCL tasks, or any application that can use its larger memory pool and higher throughput.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230, however, is a different kind of product. Its IGP classification, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, and lack of a listed TDP suggest it is meant for basic laptop graphics, not professional workloads. Its 2 GB of DDR3 memory and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth are minimal, and its 390.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is less than half of the K3100M's 1,084.4 GFLOPS. The R5 M230 also has a small advantage in DirectX feature level, 11_1 versus 11_0, and a slightly newer release date, January 6, 2014 versus July 22, 2013.

The verdict from the database is straightforward. If the requirement is maximum compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins by a wide margin, with a 34.5% lead in OpenCL and a 577-point lead in average score. If the requirement is a low-power integrated solution for basic tasks, the R5 M230 fits that profile, but the recorded data shows it cannot match the K3100M in any benchmark. The K3100M is the pick for anyone needing professional-grade mobile graphics, while the R5 M230 is only suitable for the lightest workloads, and even then, the numbers show it is far behind.