AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

# AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M

This comparison pairs two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different worlds: the AMD Radeon R5 M255, a 2014 entry-level part built on GCN 3.0, against the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, a 2015 professional mobile workstation GPU based on Maxwell 2.0. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the story is more nuanced than raw scores alone. The R5 M255 averages 4788 across its benchmark suite, while the Quadro M3000M averages 4621 — a peculiar situation where the lower-performing GPU on aggregate wins every head-to-head test by a wide margin. The explanation lies in benchmark weighting, API coverage, and the fundamental architectural divide between these two chips.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both head-to-head benchmarks decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16646 against the R5 M255’s 4650, a delta of -72.1% from the AMD part’s perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains enormous: 16668 versus 4925, a -70.5% delta. If your workload is OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Quadro M3000M is the only rational choice from this dataset.

However, the average benchmark score tells a different story. The R5 M255’s average of 4788 actually exceeds the Quadro M3000M’s 4621. This happens because the Quadro M3000M’s aggregate includes several Passmark tests where its scores are remarkably low — 26 in DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, 23 in DirectX 12, and 98 in DirectX 9. These legacy API tests drag its average down despite the strong Geekbench results. The R5 M255, with only two Geekbench benchmarks in its record, avoids this penalty entirely.

Who should pick which? If you require professional-grade compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M3000M is the clear winner — its scores are over 3.5x higher in both tests. If you are looking purely at average benchmark mass, the R5 M255 edges ahead, but that advantage is an artifact of missing data rather than genuine capability. The Quadro M3000M also offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the R5 M255’s 2 GB of DDR3, and a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit — factors that matter for texture-heavy and large-dataset workloads. This is not a close contest in any meaningful performance metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs originate from different process generations, though both use TSMC’s 28 nm node. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is built on GCN 3.0 with the Topaz chip, containing 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM204 chip, packing 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die — more than three times the transistor count and over three times the die area. Transistor density is similar: 12.4M per mm² for AMD versus 13.1M per mm² for NVIDIA, suggesting the node maturity is comparable and the performance gap comes from sheer silicon scale.

Core configuration differences are stark. The R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — roughly 2.7x, 2.7x, and 4x the AMD’s counts respectively. These translate directly to throughput: the Quadro M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 721.9 GFLOPS for the R5 M255, a 2.6x advantage. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture amplifies the gap. The R5 M255 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.4 GB/s — five times the bandwidth. Clock speeds are closer than the other specs suggest: the AMD runs at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The Quadro M3000M’s advantage comes almost entirely from wider execution resources and faster memory, not clock frequency.

The NVIDIA part also supports DirectX 12_1 versus the AMD’s 12_0, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA, which matters for data transfer in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The Quadro M3000M is rated at 75 W TDP and comes as an MXM module, while the R5 M255 has no listed TDP or slot width.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided but revealing. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16646 against the R5 M255’s 4650. That is a 3.58x advantage for NVIDIA. The -72.1% deltaPct indicates how far behind the AMD part falls relative to the winner. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, so this result reflects raw shader throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency — all areas where the Quadro M3000M’s larger silicon and faster GDDR5 should dominate.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern: 16668 for Quadro M3000M versus 4925 for R5 M255, a 3.38x gap. The -70.5% deltaPct is marginally smaller than OpenCL’s, suggesting the AMD part performs slightly less badly relative to NVIDIA under Vulkan. This could indicate that GCN 3.0’s Vulkan implementation is comparatively stronger than its OpenCL path, or that the test’s workload characteristics favor the AMD architecture slightly more. Either way, the absolute difference remains overwhelming.

Context from nearest rivals puts these scores in perspective. The R5 M255’s average of 4788 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) and 1.2% below the GeForce 940MX (4844). That is remarkable — a 2014 entry-level chip statistically ties a modern high-end GPU on average score, which highlights how misleading aggregate numbers can be when benchmark sets differ. The Quadro M3000M’s average of 4621 sits 0.1% below the GeForce GTX 970M (4628) and 1% above the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577). Neither GPU’s nearest rivals include the other, reinforcing that they occupy different performance tiers despite similar percentiles — 28th for AMD, 27th for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M averages 4621. However, this comparison is incomplete because the AMD part only has two Geekbench results, while the NVIDIA part includes nine benchmarks across multiple APIs.

Q: Why does the Quadro M3000M win head-to-head tests by such a large margin?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units versus 384, 64 TMUs versus 24, 32 ROPs versus 8, and 160.4 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth versus 32.00 GB/s of DDR3. These architectural advantages translate to 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 versus 721.9 GFLOPS.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in transistor density?

A: Yes, both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The R5 M255 has 12.4M transistors per mm², while the Quadro M3000M has 13.1M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is much larger overall at 398 mm² versus 125 mm².

Q: What API level does each GPU support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R5 M255 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, making it more future-proof for newer API features.

Q: How does the Quadro M3000M perform in older DirectX benchmarks?

A: Surprisingly poorly. It scores 26 in Passmark DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, 23 in DirectX 12, and 98 in DirectX 9. These low scores pull its average down significantly despite strong Geekbench results.

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

A: The R5 M255 is 0.8% above the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and 1.3% above the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX. The Quadro M3000M is 1% above the AMD Radeon R5 M230 and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins every measured head-to-head category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 16646 versus 4650 — a 3.58x advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 16668 versus 4925 — a 3.38x advantage. For any OpenCL or Vulkan compute workload — machine learning inference, physics simulation, video encoding, or GPU-accelerated rendering — the Quadro M3000M is the only viable option from this dataset.

The R5 M255’s only claim to superiority is its higher average benchmark score (4788 versus 4621) and its percentile ranking (28th versus 27th). These are statistical artifacts of the differing benchmark suites, not evidence of real-world competitiveness. The AMD part also has a lower transistor count (1,550 million versus 5,200 million) and smaller die (125 mm² versus 398 mm²), which could imply lower manufacturing cost — but no pricing data is available to confirm this.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the Quadro M3000M’s Passmark scores are poor (26 in DX10, 42 in DX11, 23 in DX12, 98 in DX9), but the R5 M255 has no corresponding benchmarks in the dataset, so no direct comparison is possible. The Quadro M3000M’s 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for large textures and high-resolution rendering, while the R5 M255’s 2 GB DDR3 at 32.00 GB/s would bottleneck such tasks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification. Process node is identical at 28 nm TSMC, but the NVIDIA chip uses 5,200 million transistors versus AMD’s 1,550 million, with die sizes of 398 mm² versus 125 mm². Transistor density is similar: 13.1M per mm² versus 12.4M per mm².

Clock speeds are comparable: the R5 M255 runs at 925 MHz base and 940 MHz boost, while the Quadro M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory differs substantially: 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 32.00 GB/s for AMD, versus 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 160.4 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Execution resources favor NVIDIA heavily: 1,024 shading units versus 384, 64 TMUs versus 24, and 32 ROPs versus 8. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 7.520 GPixel/s; texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 22.56 GTexel/s; FP32 is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 721.9 GFLOPS. The Quadro M3000M supports FP16? No — FP16 is listed as null for NVIDIA, while AMD provides 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Power and form factor differ: the Quadro M3000M has a 75 W TDP, MXM Module slot width, and no power connectors, while the R5 M255 has no TDP or slot width listed. Bus interface favors NVIDIA with PCIe 3.0 x16 versus AMD’s x8. API support shows NVIDIA ahead on DirectX (12_1 versus 12_0) and Vulkan (1.4 versus 1.2.170), with both sharing OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for NVIDIA and unlisted for AMD.