AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and the AMD Radeon R5 M330 are two end-of-life mobile graphics processors that occupy similar performance tiers in the database, yet they approach their work from fundamentally different architectural and design philosophies. The data shows two GPUs separated by three years of release timing, with the newer AMD part delivering a marginal edge in raw compute benchmarks while the older NVIDIA chip counters with superior memory bandwidth and a more robust feature set for professional workloads. This analysis breaks down the specifications and benchmark results to clarify where each part holds a distinct advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 holds a higher average benchmark score of 4170, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's average of 4241. However, the NVIDIA part actually has a higher single OpenCL score (4241 vs 4302 for AMD), and the averages are skewed by the AMD chip having an additional Vulkan test result of 4037.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins with a score of 4302 against the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's 4241, representing a delta of -1.4% from NVIDIA's perspective. This is a very narrow margin, indicating near-identical raw compute performance in this specific workload.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in significantly lower bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s — a difference of roughly 6.2 times in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and larger die size?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is built from 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This makes the NVIDIA chip substantially more complex, though both are manufactured on the same 28 nm TSMC process node.

Q: How do the shading units and texture mapping units compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units and 48 TMUs, whereas the AMD Radeon R5 M330 is equipped with 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. The NVIDIA part also has 32 ROPs compared to only 8 on the AMD chip.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 draws only 18 W. This makes the AMD part a far more power-efficient design, consuming less than a quarter of the power of the NVIDIA chip.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear split in strengths. In the raw Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 comes out ahead with 4302 points versus 4241 for the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, a 1.4% advantage. This suggests that for general compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, the AMD part is marginally faster, despite its much smaller physical footprint and lower power envelope.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins decisively in memory-centric scenarios. With 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the AMD chip's 14.40 GB/s, the NVIDIA part has a massive advantage for workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as high-resolution texture streaming or large data-set manipulation. The NVIDIA chip also has far higher texture fill rate (31.39 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s) and more than double the ROP count (32 vs 8), which favors it in traditional rasterization and pixel-heavy rendering tasks.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 counters with superior pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s versus the NVIDIA's 7.848 GPixel/s, a small but notable win in fill-rate efficiency per watt. The AMD part also wins on the Vulkan API front, having a dedicated Geekbench Vulkan score of 4037, while the NVIDIA chip has no listed Vulkan benchmark result in the database. This indicates the AMD driver stack offers functional Vulkan support that the NVIDIA part lacks in testing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is based on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process. It is a massive die at 294 mm², housing 3,540 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². This is a professional-grade design intended for mobile workstations, as evidenced by its Quadro Kepler-M generation and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the Exo chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with a much smaller 56 mm² die containing 690 million transistors. Its transistor density of 12.3M per mm² is nearly identical, which is remarkable given the scale difference. The AMD chip is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, suggesting it is designed for lower-cost, power-constrained laptops rather than heavy-duty mobile workstations.

The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX version difference is minor but technically favors AMD, while the Vulkan version slightly favors NVIDIA. Neither chip has ray tracing or tensor cores. The NVIDIA chip has a predecessor of Quadro Fermi-M and a successor of Quadro Maxwell-M, while the AMD chip sits in the Gem System generation with a predecessor of Solar System and successor of Polaris Mobile.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several key divergences. The most striking difference is in memory architecture: the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus to reach 89.60 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for just 14.40 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ significantly — the NVIDIA chip runs at a fixed 654 MHz base and boost, whereas the AMD chip has a 955 MHz base clock that boosts to 1030 MHz, roughly 50% higher.

Shader resources favor NVIDIA heavily: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus AMD's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In terms of raw throughput, the NVIDIA chip delivers 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute and a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s, while the AMD chip produces 659.2 GFLOPS and 20.60 GTexel/s. Interestingly, the AMD chip has a higher pixel rate at 8.240 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s for NVIDIA.

Power and physical form factor are major differentiators. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a 75 W TDP and comes as an MXM Module, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 draws just 18 W and is an IGP. Neither requires external power connectors, and both use Portable Device Dependent display outputs. The NVIDIA chip was released in 2012, while the AMD part came three years later in 2015. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP listed in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data in this comparison is limited to a single OpenCL test, but it is instructive. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 scores 4302 against the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's 4241, giving AMD a win with a delta of -1.4% relative to NVIDIA. This is an extremely tight margin, well within the noise of typical benchmark variance, but it does show the AMD chip edging out the NVIDIA part in raw OpenCL compute.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each chip provides additional context. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (avg score 4268, -0.6% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, -1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, +1.2% delta), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, -1.3% delta). This places the K3000M right in the middle of a cluster of similarly-performing GPUs.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151, +0.4% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, -0.5% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M itself (4241, -1.7% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, +1.9% delta). Notably, the K3000M appears as a rival to the R5 M330, confirming they are in the same performance class, with the AMD part holding a 1.7% advantage in that direct comparison.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. For pure compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the winner, albeit by a hair. Its 4302 score against the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's 4241 represents a real, if narrow, advantage. The AMD chip also offers superior power efficiency, with an 18 W TDP versus 75 W for the NVIDIA part, making it the clear choice for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount.

For professional and bandwidth-intensive tasks, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the stronger candidate. Its 89.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than six times that of the AMD chip, and its higher texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s) and ROP count (32 vs 8) suggest better performance in graphics-heavy applications like CAD, 3D modeling, and video editing. The NVIDIA part also has a more complete professional pedigree, being an MXM module in the Quadro line, which historically targets workstation-certified drivers and applications.

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 wins the Vulkan compatibility check, with a dedicated score of 4037, while the NVIDIA part lacks any Vulkan benchmark data. This could be relevant for modern gaming or compute applications that leverage Vulkan. However, the NVIDIA chip's higher FP32 throughput (753.4 GFLOPS vs 659.2 GFLOPS) indicates it has more raw compute headroom when not constrained by memory bandwidth.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 is the better pick for power-sensitive users who need competent OpenCL compute and Vulkan support in a low-power package. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the better pick for users who prioritize memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and professional-grade rasterization capabilities, accepting the higher power draw and older release date. The benchmark scores are nearly identical, but the architectural differences make each chip suited to different use cases.