AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics solutions. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 takes the only recorded head-to-head victory, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test by a decisive margin. Its score of 5051 against the Quadro K3000M’s 4241 represents a 19.1% advantage, which is substantial for GPUs in this class. This win is not a marginal one; it places the R5 M320 in a clearly higher performance tier for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The R5 M320 also holds a second benchmark result in the database, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4262. The Quadro K3000M has no recorded Vulkan result, so there is no direct comparison for that API. The presence of a Vulkan score alone indicates broader API support for modern graphics workloads, while the Quadro K3000M’s data is limited to OpenCL only.

For the Quadro K3000M, the data shows no recorded wins in the head-to-head comparison. Its sole OpenCL score of 4241 is lower than the R5 M320’s OpenCL score, and its average benchmark score of 4241 trails the R5 M320’s average of 4657. The K3000M’s position in the database percentile ranking, at 25th percentile versus the R5 M320’s 27th percentile, reinforces that it sits slightly lower in overall performance distribution.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute tasks, and it also offers Vulkan support that the NVIDIA part lacks in recorded data. The Quadro K3000M, despite its professional branding, does not translate that branding into a performance advantage in the measured benchmarks. Its strengths, if any, would have to come from features or characteristics not captured in the recorded test suite.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, starting with the fundamental design philosophy. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Jet, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M employs the Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip. Both are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, which puts them on equal footing for manufacturing technology, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts tell a dramatic story of scale. The R5 M320 packs 690 million transistors into a die size of 56 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro K3000M, by contrast, contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The K3000M is more than five times larger in die area and holds over five times the transistor count, yet the density figures are nearly identical, reflecting the shared 28 nm process generation.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The R5 M320 comes with 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, producing a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. The K3000M offers only 2 GB but uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than five times the R5 M320’s memory throughput. Clock speeds also differ: the R5 M320 runs at a base of 780 MHz with a boost up to 855 MHz and memory at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the K3000M holds a flat 654 MHz base and boost with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective).

Compute resources favor the NVIDIA part in raw counts. The K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units, versus the R5 M320’s 320 shaders, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These translate into pixel rates of 7.848 GPixel/s and texture rates of 31.39 GTexel/s for the K3000M, compared to 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s for the R5 M320. Floating point performance also favors NVIDIA: 753.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS.

The form factors and interfaces reflect their intended markets. The R5 M320 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the K3000M is an MXM module using the MXM-B (3.0) interface. The K3000M has a rated TDP of 75 W with no power connectors required, while the R5 M320 has no TDP listed in the database. API support shows the R5 M320 supporting DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon R5 M320 is the faster GPU in the benchmark suite. Its 19.1% lead in OpenCL performance over the Quadro K3000M is the only direct head-to-head measurement available, and it is unequivocal. The R5 M320’s average benchmark score of 4657 also beats the K3000M’s 4241, a difference of about 9.8% based on the recorded averages.

The R5 M320 also carries advantages in memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB) and API support, including a Vulkan benchmark result that the K3000M lacks entirely. Its percentile ranking of 27 versus the K3000M’s 25 further places it ahead in the overall performance distribution.

The Quadro K3000M does have compensating strengths in the database, but they are not reflected in benchmark scores. Its memory bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s is vastly superior, its shading unit count of 576 is higher, and its texture and pixel fill rates exceed the R5 M320’s. These specifications would matter in theoretical throughput scenarios, but the actual OpenCL result tells a different story, suggesting that the R5 M320’s architecture extracts better real-world compute efficiency from its smaller resource pool.

For buyers choosing between these two, the data supports selecting the AMD Radeon R5 M320 for general compute performance and modern API compatibility. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M would only be preferable if the specific workload relies heavily on memory bandwidth or if the MXM form factor is a requirement, as those characteristics are not captured in the benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 scores 5051 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, giving AMD a 19.1% lead.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M have a Vulkan benchmark result?

A: No, the database records only a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4241 for the K3000M. The R5 M320 has both OpenCL and Vulkan scores, with the Vulkan result at 4262.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M320’s 16.00 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor counts of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 contains 690 million transistors, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M contains 3,540 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher shading unit count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 has 320 shading units.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has an average benchmark score of 4241.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a clear outcome. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 posts a score of 5051, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M finishes at 4241. The delta of 19.1% in AMD’s favor is the largest margin in any comparison involving these parts, and it is the deciding factor in the overall matchup.

This result is notable because the hardware specifications would suggest a different outcome. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units against the R5 M320’s 320, a 256-bit memory bus against a 64-bit bus, and 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth against 16.00 GB/s. Its theoretical peak floating point of 753.4 GFLOPS is also higher than the R5 M320’s 547.2 GFLOPS. Yet in the OpenCL workload, the R5 M320 outperforms the K3000M by nearly a fifth, indicating that raw resource counts do not always translate into compute performance.

The R5 M320’s advantage likely stems from its higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency. It runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with a boost to 855 MHz, while the K3000M is locked at 654 MHz. The R5 M320’s GCN 1.0 architecture delivers 17.10 GTexel/s and 6.840 GPixel/s, which, while lower than the K3000M’s 31.39 GTexel/s and 7.848 GPixel/s, still manages to win the compute test.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The R5 M320’s average score of 4657 places it alongside the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (-0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (0.6%), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (0.8%). These are all much newer or higher-tier parts, yet the R5 M320 sits within 1% of all of them.

The K3000M’s average of 4241, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 (-0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M at 4282 (-1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (1.2%), and the AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295 (-1.3%). The K3000M is within 1.3% of all of these, but the company it keeps is older and less capable than the R5 M320’s peer group.

The single benchmark result is the entire head-to-head story: one test, one winner, with a 19.1% margin. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins the matchup decisively, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has no countervailing benchmark victory to claim. For any workload measured by OpenCL, the database clearly favors the AMD part.