AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the AMD Radeon R5 M255. The AMD part scored 4650 points against the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s 4241 points, a delta of 9.6%. This means the Radeon outperforms the Quadro by nearly ten percent in this compute-oriented workload, a meaningful margin for tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU processing.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the AMD Radeon R5 M255’s average score of 4788 places it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which scores 4791, a difference of only 0.1% in favor of the RTX card. That puts the R5 M255 in remarkable company, essentially matching a high-end desktop part in this specific aggregate metric. On the other side of the ledger, the AMD Radeon R5 M255 is 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, which scores 4844, and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M335, which scores 4752. It also leads the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX by 1.3%, that card scoring 4727.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, by contrast, has an average score of 4241, placing it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 3, which scores 4268, meaning the Quadro trails by 0.6%. The Quadro also sits 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282), 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193), and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295). The data shows the Quadro K3000M is clustered with entry-level integrated and older discrete solutions, while the Radeon R5 M255 sits in a slightly higher performance tier, closer to more recent mainstream parts.

The Geekbench Vulkan result for the Radeon R5 M255 is 4925, which is higher than its OpenCL score. The Quadro K3000M has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there. Still, the presence of a Vulkan score indicates the Radeon supports the modern API, which could be relevant for compatibility with newer applications and games.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0 architecture, using the Topaz chip, and belongs to the Gem System generation within the R5 M200 family. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the Kepler architecture, based on the GK104 chip, and is part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the fabrication node is identical. The transistor density is also very close: the AMD chip packs 12.4 million transistors per square millimeter, while the NVIDIA chip achieves 12.0 million per square millimeter.

The raw silicon sizes tell a different story. The AMD Topaz chip contains 1,550 million transistors on a die size of 125 mm². The NVIDIA GK104 is a much larger chip, containing 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm². That is more than twice the transistor count and more than double the die area. This suggests the Quadro was designed for a higher ceiling in terms of raw compute resources, though the clock speeds and memory configuration temper that advantage.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Radeon R5 M255 runs at a base clock of 925 MHz with a boost up to 940 MHz, while the Quadro K3000M is locked at 654 MHz for both base and boost. The Radeon’s higher clocks help it overcome the Quadro’s larger chip in the OpenCL test. Memory clocks also differ: the Radeon uses 1000 MHz memory with 2 Gbps effective data rate, while the Quadro runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective. The memory type and bus width are the bigger differentiators, with the Radeon using 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the Quadro’s 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s. The Quadro has nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which could benefit certain workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive.

The compute unit counts also vary. The Radeon has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro’s higher unit counts are reflected in its texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s versus the Radeon’s 22.56 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s versus the Radeon’s 7.520 GPixel/s. In terms of raw FP32 throughput, the Quadro edges out the Radeon at 753.4 GFLOPS versus 721.9 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 4%. The Radeon does support FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

API support also differs. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon’s higher DirectX feature level could matter for newer games and applications that require 12_0 features. The bus interface also differs: the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), a module form factor typical of laptops. The Quadro has a TDP of 75 W, while the Radeon has no TDP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU performs better in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark with a score of 4650, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s 4241. That is a 9.6% advantage for the Radeon.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788, sitting 0.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) and 0.8% above the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752). The Quadro K3000M averages 4241, which is 0.6% below the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268) and 1.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193).

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two?

A: The Radeon R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth, giving the Quadro a large bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and higher texture rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units and 48 TMUs, with a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, with a texture rate of 22.56 GTexel/s.

Q: Does the Radeon R5 M255 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Radeon R5 M255 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4925. The Quadro K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 but has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The Quadro K3000M uses a GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Radeon R5 M255 uses a Topaz chip with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

The Verdict

The data points to a narrow but consistent win for the AMD Radeon R5 M255 in compute performance, as measured by Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon’s 9.6% lead in the head-to-head test, combined with its higher average score of 4788 versus the Quadro’s 4241, suggests it is the better choice for general compute tasks. Its higher clock speeds and more modern GCN 3.0 architecture seem to compensate for the Quadro’s larger chip and higher unit counts.

However, the Quadro K3000M is not without merits. Its GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus provides 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 2.8 times the Radeon’s 32.00 GB/s. For workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound, such as certain rendering or image processing tasks, the Quadro could potentially perform better, even if the aggregate benchmark does not reflect it. The Quadro also has higher pixel and texture rates, at 7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s respectively, which could benefit traditional graphics rendering.

The percentile rankings are close: the Radeon sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 25th. The delta between them in average score is 547 points, which is substantial in percentage terms (about 12.9% in favor of the Radeon). The Radeon also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4925, which is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting it may be even more capable in modern API workloads.

Users who prioritize compute performance, modern API support, and higher clock speeds should favor the AMD Radeon R5 M255. Users who need higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, and a larger die with more transistors might consider the Quadro K3000M, especially if their specific applications are bandwidth-sensitive. The Quadro’s 75 W TDP is also recorded, while the Radeon’s is not, so power efficiency comparisons cannot be made from the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M |

|----------------|---------------------|----------------------|

| Chip | Topaz | GK104 |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 940 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.00 GB/s | 89.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 576 |

| TMUs | 24 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.520 GPixel/s | 7.848 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 31.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 721.9 GFLOPS | 753.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | null | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-10-11 | 2012-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in the recorded head-to-head benchmark, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 9.6%. It also wins on clock speed, with a 940 MHz boost versus the Quadro’s 654 MHz. The Radeon has the higher average benchmark score at 4788 versus 4241, and it holds a higher percentile ranking at 28th versus 25th. It supports DirectX 12 with the 12_0 feature level, which the Quadro does not match (it only reaches 11_0). The Radeon also has a recorded Vulkan score of 4925, demonstrating functional modern API performance.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins on memory bandwidth, offering 89.60 GB/s versus the Radeon’s 32.00 GB/s. It also has more shading units (576 versus 384), more TMUs (48 versus 24), and more ROPs (32 versus 8). Its pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s and texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s both exceed the Radeon’s corresponding figures. The Quadro’s FP32 throughput of 753.4 GFLOPS is also higher than the Radeon’s 721.9 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a larger die (294 mm² versus 125 mm²) and more transistors (3,540 million versus 1,550 million), and it carries a recorded 75 W TDP, while the Radeon’s TDP is not listed.

For practical use, the Radeon R5 M255 is the better choice for compute workloads as measured by the database, and for applications that benefit from higher clock speeds and DirectX 12_0 features. The Quadro K3000M is the better choice for bandwidth-intensive tasks, and for scenarios where higher texture and pixel fill rates are critical. The Quadro’s MXM-B form factor also indicates it was designed for modular laptop deployments, whereas the Radeon uses a standard PCIe interface.