AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from 2015, but they occupy vastly different performance tiers. Despite sharing the same 27th percentile ranking among all GPUs and nearly identical average benchmark scores (4657 vs. 4621), the head-to-head data reveals a decisive NVIDIA victory. The M3000M wins both direct comparisons by wide margins, while the R5 M320’s closest rival is actually the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at a 0% deltaPct, illustrating how benchmark averages can mask stark real-world differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M dominates the AMD Radeon R5 M320 in every direct benchmark comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16,646 against the R5 M320’s 5,051, a deltaPct of -69.7% from the AMD part’s perspective. That translates to the NVIDIA GPU delivering roughly 3.3 times the compute performance in this workload. The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan, where the M3000M hits 16,668 while the R5 M320 manages only 4,262, a -74.4% delta. Here, the NVIDIA part is nearly 4 times faster.

These aren’t marginal victories; they are category-defining differences. The M3000M’s Vulkan score of 16,668 is nearly four times the R5 M320’s OpenCL result, showing that NVIDIA’s architecture scales better across modern API workloads. For the R5 M320, its best showing is the 5,051 OpenCL score, which still trails the M3000M’s worst head-to-head result by more than 70%. The data shows NVIDIA winning both contests with no ambiguity, and the R5 M320 fails to secure a single win in any tracked benchmark.

The average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The R5 M320 averages 4,657, while the M3000M averages 4,621 — a difference of just 0.8% in AMD’s favor. This is largely because the M3000M’s average is pulled down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which include a 26 in DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, 23 in DirectX 12, and 98 in DirectX 9. The R5 M320 has no Passmark results in the fact pack, so its average relies solely on the two Geekbench tests. In contrast, the M3000M’s Passmark G3D score of 5,543 and GPU Compute score of 2,139 show substantial capability in legacy and compute workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD’s R5 M320 uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². NVIDIA’s M3000M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also TSMC 28 nm, but scales dramatically larger: 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1 million per mm². That’s roughly 7.5 times more transistors and a 7.1 times larger die area.

The compute resources reflect this disparity. The M3000M fields 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The R5 M320 has 320 shaders, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In every category, NVIDIA’s part has at least 3.2 times the hardware. Pixel throughput tells the story: the M3000M achieves 29.57 GPixel/s versus 6.84 GPixel/s for the R5 M320, a 4.3x advantage. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 59.14 GTexel/s against 17.10 GTexel/s, a 3.5x gap. Peak FP32 performance reaches 1.892 TFLOPS on the M3000M, more than 3.4 times the R5 M320’s 547.2 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. Both cards ship with 4 GB, but the R5 M320 uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M3000M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s — exactly 10 times more bandwidth. Clock speeds are closer: the M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the R5 M320 operates at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ substantially, with the M3000M at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 averages 4,657, slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M’s 4,621, a 0.8% difference in AMD’s favor.

Q: How much faster is the M3000M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The M3000M scores 16,646 versus 5,051 for the R5 M320, representing a -69.7% deltaPct from AMD’s perspective — meaning NVIDIA is over 3 times faster.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M3000M delivers 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the R5 M320 manages 16.00 GB/s over 64-bit DDR3, a 10-fold gap.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern APIs?

A: Yes, but with differences. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the R5 M320 caps at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The M3000M has 1,024 shading units compared to 320 on the R5 M320, a 3.2x advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The M3000M’s GM204 has 5,200 million transistors, while the R5 M320’s Jet has 690 million — a ratio of approximately 7.5 to 1.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The M3000M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the R5 M320 uses Jet on GCN 1.0. Transistor counts are 5,200 million versus 690 million, and die sizes are 398 mm² versus 56 mm². Shading units stand at 1,024 against 320, TMUs at 64 versus 20, and ROPs at 32 versus 8. Memory type differs (GDDR5 vs. DDR3), bus width differs (256-bit vs. 64-bit), and bandwidth differs massively (160.4 GB/s vs. 16.00 GB/s).

Clock speeds show the M3000M at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the R5 M320 runs 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s against 6.84 GPixel/s; texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s; FP32 is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The M3000M has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot, while the R5 M320 lists no TDP and uses IGP slot width. Bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA, PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M320 caps at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M for any performance-oriented task. Its 3.3x OpenCL advantage and 3.9x Vulkan advantage over the R5 M320 make it the only rational choice for compute-heavy workloads. The M3000M’s 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, 1.892 TFLOPS FP32, and 29.57 GPixel/s pixel rate are in a completely different performance class. The R5 M320’s only statistical win is the 0.8% higher average benchmark score, which stems from the M3000M’s low Passmark DirectX results dragging down its composite average. That anomaly does not survive direct comparison.

For users prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the M3000M is the clear pick. Its 10x memory bandwidth advantage alone justifies selection for memory-bound tasks. The R5 M320, with its 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and 547.2 GFLOPS, is suited only for the most basic display output or legacy workloads. The M3000M’s 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs provide 3.2x and 3.2x more resources respectively, making it vastly more capable for modern rendering. The M3000M also offers superior API support with Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), ensuring better forward compatibility. In short, the Quadro M3000M wins on every meaningful performance metric, and the R5 M320’s average score advantage is a statistical artifact rather than a real-world capability.