AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and the AMD Radeon R5 M320, and in both instances the Quadro K3100M emerges as the clear winner. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3100M scores 6154 against the Radeon R5 M320's 5051, a margin of 21.8%. This is a substantial gap that reflects a fundamental difference in raw compute throughput, as the OpenCL workload scales heavily with shading unit count and memory bandwidth.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even wider divide. The Quadro K3100M records 5484 points, while the Radeon R5 M320 manages only 4262, resulting in a 28.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that rewards architectures with efficient command processing and higher fill rates, and the data suggests the Kepler-based Quadro handles these workloads with considerably more headroom. Across both recorded benchmarks, the Quadro K3100M wins 2 out of 2 comparisons, with no single test favoring the AMD part.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K3100M's average benchmark score sits at 5154, placing it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 (a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (1.1% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (1.6% higher). The Quadro K3100M also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 240, which scores 5063, by 1.8%. This clustering indicates that the Quadro K3100M sits in a tightly contested performance band, but within this head-to-head matchup, it holds a decisive edge over the Radeon R5 M320.

The Radeon R5 M320, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 4657, placing it in the 27th percentile. Its nearest rivals show an unusual spread: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB matches it exactly at 4657 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4684 (0.6% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M trails slightly at 4628 (0.6% lower). The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M also sits close at 4621, 0.8% lower. This suggests the Radeon R5 M320 is positioned at the lower end of the mobile GPU spectrum, and the 497-point average score gap between the two contenders (5154 vs 4657) translates to a roughly 10.7% overall performance deficit for the AMD part across all recorded tests.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells a story of two very different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This is a large die, measuring 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The sheer scale of this chip provides the foundation for its performance: 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320, in contrast, uses the Jet chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC at 28 nm. But here the die is dramatically smaller: just 56 mm² with 690 million transistors, yielding a slightly higher transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The smaller chip houses only 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 2.4x difference in shading units and 4x difference in ROPs directly explains the Quadro's commanding lead in pixel rate (11.30 GPixel/s vs 6.84 GPixel/s) and texture rate (45.18 GTexel/s vs 17.10 GTexel/s).

Memory architecture further separates the two. The Quadro K3100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M320 also has 4 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, capping bandwidth at just 16.00 GB/s. That is a 6.4x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is critical for texture-heavy and compute-intensive workloads. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Radeon runs at a base of 780 MHz with a boost of 855 MHz, while the Quadro is fixed at 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also favor the AMD part in raw frequency (1000 MHz vs 800 MHz), but the effective data rates (2 Gbps vs 3.2 Gbps) and bus width completely invert the practical bandwidth comparison.

FP32 compute performance reflects the architectural gulf. The Quadro K3100M delivers 1,084.4 GFLOPS, while the Radeon R5 M320 manages 547.2 GFLOPS, almost exactly half. Neither chip has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (with the Quadro at feature level 11_0 and the Radeon at 11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.2.175 for NVIDIA, 1.2.170 for AMD). The form factors differ as well: the Quadro ships as an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Radeon is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no specified TDP and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves little ambiguity for this pairing. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 21.8% and 28.7%, and it holds a higher average benchmark score (5154 vs 4657) and a better percentile ranking (30th vs 27th). For any application that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Quadro K3100M is the superior choice, and the architecture analysis confirms why: more shading units, more ROPs, vastly higher memory bandwidth, and nearly double the FP32 throughput.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 does have a few nominal advantages in the specification sheet. It runs at higher clock speeds (780 MHz base, 855 MHz boost vs a flat 706 MHz), it is built on a newer generation (Gem System R5 M300 vs Quadro Kepler-M Kx100M), and it supports DirectX 12 feature level 11_1 instead of 11_0. However, none of these translate into benchmark wins. The higher clocks are overwhelmed by the Quadro's superior resource counts, and the DirectX feature level difference is unlikely to matter in practice given that both parts are end-of-life and neither supports the full DirectX 12 feature set.

From a pure performance standpoint, the Quadro K3100M is the clear pick. The only scenario where the Radeon R5 M320 might be preferable is if the system requires an integrated form factor (IGP) rather than an MXM module, or if the PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is a hard requirement. But for raw compute capability, the data is unambiguous: the Quadro K3100M outperforms the Radeon R5 M320 in every recorded test.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, while the AMD Radeon R5 M320 uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0. Transistor counts diverge sharply: 3,540 million for NVIDIA versus 690 million for AMD, with die sizes of 294 mm² and 56 mm² respectively. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M/mm² vs 12.3M/mm²), which reflects the same 28 nm TSMC process node.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part: 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost versus the Quadro's flat 706 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the Radeon at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) and the Quadro at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Memory type and bus width are major differentiators: GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for NVIDIA versus DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for AMD. This yields bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s.

Compute resources show a 2.4x difference in shading units (768 vs 320), 3.2x in TMUs (64 vs 20), and 4x in ROPs (32 vs 8). Pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 6.84 GPixel/s, texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a specified TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM module slot, while the Radeon is an IGP with no TDP listed. Bus interfaces differ (MXM-B 3.0 vs PCIe 3.0 x8). DirectX support shows a minor difference (12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)), while OpenGL is identical at 4.6 and Vulkan is 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170. Release dates are separated by roughly two years: July 2013 for the Quadro, May 2015 for the Radeon.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M320's 5051, a 21.8% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro K3100M records 5484 points in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon R5 M320 scores 4262, giving the NVIDIA part a 28.7% lead.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: No. Both have 4 GB, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with only 16.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, compared to 320 on the AMD Radeon R5 M320.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5154, placing it in the 30th percentile, while the Radeon R5 M320 averages 4657 and sits in the 27th percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Quadro K3100M wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, with 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in every recorded benchmark category, so its strengths are comprehensive within this comparison. The OpenCL result (6154 vs 5051) indicates a strong lead in general-purpose compute, which matters for applications like video encoding, physics simulation, and GPU-accelerated productivity tasks. The Vulkan result (5484 vs 4262) shows even greater dominance in modern, low-overhead graphics APIs, suggesting the Kepler architecture handles draw calls and command submission far more efficiently. The Quadro's massive bandwidth advantage (102.4 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s) and 4x ROP count (32 vs 8) make it the clear choice for any workload that is memory-bound or requires high fill rates, such as high-resolution texture rendering or multi-sample anti-aliasing.

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 does not win any benchmark in this matchup, but the specification data does highlight a few areas where it is not entirely outclassed. Its higher boost clock (855 MHz vs 706 MHz) means that in highly serialized workloads with low resource utilization, the Radeon could theoretically keep pace, though no benchmark in the database confirms this. Its smaller die (56 mm² vs 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (690 million vs 3,540 million) suggest lower power draw per operation, and the IGP form factor means it can be integrated directly into a system without a dedicated MXM slot. The newer release date (May 2015 vs July 2013) also means it supports a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0), though this has no measurable impact on the recorded benchmark scores.

For practical use cases, the Quadro K3100M is the superior choice for any task that involves OpenCL compute or Vulkan rendering, which covers most modern GPU-accelerated applications. The Radeon R5 M320 is only preferable in systems where the MXM form factor is not an option and an integrated GPU is required. The data does not support any performance-based reason to choose the AMD part over the NVIDIA part in this head-to-head comparison.