AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and AMD Radeon R5 M230 represent two vastly different tiers of mobile graphics, separated not just by performance but by their fundamental design goals. The data shows a clear hierarchy, with the Quadro M3000M positioned as a professional workstation solution and the R5 M230 as an entry-level integrated part for basic multimedia tasks. Their benchmark scores, architectural underpinnings, and specifications tell a story of two products aimed at entirely different user bases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. The Quadro scores 16,646 points, while the Radeon R5 M230 manages only 4,577 points. This translates to a delta of 263.7% in favor of the NVIDIA part, meaning the Quadro M3000M is more than three and a half times faster in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational chasm in raw processing capability.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Quadro M3000M's average benchmark score of 4,621 places it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, scores an average of 4,628, a negligible delta of -0.1%, indicating the Quadro is effectively performance-equivalent to that gaming chip. Interestingly, the data also shows the Quadro M3000M is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230 in average score, which is the only benchmark where the two are compared directly. The R5 M230's own average score of 4,577 puts it in the same 27th percentile, but its nearest rival list tells a different story: it is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 560, 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530, and 0.9% ahead of the Quadro M3000M itself.

However, these average scores are misleading without context. The R5 M230's average is derived from a single Geekbench OpenCL result, while the Quadro M3000M's average is pulled from nine distinct tests, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, and compute benchmarks. In those DirectX tests, the Quadro M3000M shows its strength: it scores 98 in DirectX 9, 26 in DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, and 23 in DirectX 12. Its Passmark G3D score of 5,543 and GPU compute score of 2,139 further demonstrate a well-rounded capability for both graphics and general-purpose compute. The R5 M230 has no such data, leaving its performance in those specific APIs unknown from the provided pack. The 263.7% lead in OpenCL is the only head-to-head data point, and it is overwhelmingly in the NVIDIA card's favor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4,621, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 has an average score of 4,577. This puts the Quadro 1% ahead of the Radeon in their direct comparison.

Q: In the single shared benchmark, what is the performance gap?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, versus 4,577 for the AMD Radeon R5 M230. The NVIDIA card leads by 263.7%.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M?

A: The Quadro M3000M is virtually tied with the GTX 970M, trailing by only -0.1% in average score. The Radeon R5 M230, however, is 1.1% behind the GTX 970M in its own average score comparison.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has a memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 has a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. This is a tenfold difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 are listed with a production status of "End-of-life."

Q: What are the respective process nodes and foundries?

A: Both GPUs are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the Jet chip.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is as wide as their performance delta. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, a design known for its efficiency and strong compute capabilities. It uses the GM204 chip, which packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is based on the much older GCN 1.0 architecture, utilizing the small "Jet" chip with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, a density of 12.3M per mm². The transistor count difference is stark: the NVIDIA chip has over 7.5 times more transistors, which directly translates to its far larger shading array and memory interface.

The shading resources reflect this architectural divergence. The Quadro M3000M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The Radeon R5 M230, by contrast, has only 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This configuration gives the Quadro M3000M a pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s, compared to the R5 M230's modest 4.880 GPixel/s and 12.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute output is also wildly different: the NVIDIA card delivers 1.892 TFLOPS, while the AMD card manages just 390.4 GFLOPS. In terms of feature support, the Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R5 M230 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating a lower feature level for the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost clock of 924 MHz, whereas the AMD Radeon R5 M230 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory configuration is a major differentiator: the Quadro M3000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 5 Gbps. The R5 M230 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of just 16.00 GB/s and a 2 Gbps effective clock. This difference in memory type and bus width explains the massive bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part.

The power and interface characteristics also diverge. The Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the R5 M230 has no TDP listed and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M230 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA card has no power connectors, and neither card lists a suggested PSU. In terms of release timing, the Quadro M3000M launched on 2015-08-17, while the R5 M230 is older, launching on 2014-01-06. The NVIDIA chip also has defined predecessors and successors (Quadro Kepler-M and Quadro Pascal-M, respectively), while the R5 M230's predecessor is listed as "Solar System" and its successor as "Polaris Mobile." The only specification where they are similar is the process node (28 nm, TSMC) and the fact that both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data in this comparison is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the overwhelmingly dominant GPU, outperforming the AMD Radeon R5 M230 by 263.7% in their only shared benchmark. Its larger transistor count, 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, and 1,024 shading units provide a level of compute and graphics performance that the R5 M230 cannot approach with its 320 shaders and 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro M3000M's average score of 4,621 puts it in the same performance class as a GeForce GTX 970M, a respectable mid-range gaming chip, while the R5 M230's 4,577 average score places it alongside integrated graphics solutions like the Intel HD Graphics P530.

Who should pick which? From the data, the Quadro M3000M is the choice for any user needing serious graphics or compute throughput, particularly in professional or demanding 3D applications. Its higher DirectX 12 feature level and support for Vulkan 1.4 also future-proof it better than the R5 M230. The Radeon R5 M230, with its lower bandwidth and older GCN 1.0 architecture, is only suitable for basic display output and very light workloads. The 263.7% performance delta is not a close call; it is a decisive recommendation for the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M in any scenario where performance matters.