AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and the AMD Radeon R5 M330, and both are decisive wins for the NVIDIA part. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 against the Radeon R5 M330's 4,302, a delta of 286.9%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is even larger: 16,668 versus 4,037, a 312.9% advantage. These are not close contests; the Quadro M3000M delivers roughly three to four times the compute throughput in both API workloads.

When placed against the broader database, the Quadro M3000M holds an average benchmark score of 4,621, which places it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the two are effectively tied. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 and AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB both sit at 4,657, putting them 0.8% ahead of the Quadro M3000M, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 trails at 4,577, which is 1% behind. The picture changes for the Radeon R5 M330, whose average score of 4,170 lands at the 25th percentile. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4,151, a delta of 0.4%, meaning the R5 M330 is marginally ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4,193, 0.5% higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4,241, 1.7% higher. Only the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, at 4,093, sits clearly behind the R5 M330, with a delta of 1.9%.

The average score gap between the two cards in question is 451 points, or roughly 10.8% of the Radeon's average. This is a meaningful margin, though the head-to-head results suggest the gap is far larger in compute-heavy API tests than in the mixed workload that produces the average score. The Quadro M3000M also shows a wider spread in its individual benchmark results, from a low of 23 in Passmark DirectX 12 to a high of 5,543 in Passmark G3D, while the Radeon R5 M330 only has two recorded benchmark entries. The Passmark data for the Quadro M3000M helps contextualize its strengths: 98 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 10, 402 in G2D, and 2,139 in GPU compute. The Radeon R5 M330 has no equivalent Passmark entries in the database, so direct comparison in those workloads is not possible.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and different generations. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is built on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M generation. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the Exo chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, from the Gem System generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

The transistor counts diverge sharply. The Quadro M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R5 M330 has only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M3000M is not just larger, it is also denser, which reflects the more complex Maxwell 2.0 design.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Radeon R5 M330 has a higher base clock at 955 MHz and a higher boost clock at 1,030 MHz, compared to the Quadro M3000M's 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. However, the Quadro M3000M compensates with far more execution resources. It has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Radeon R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro M3000M's pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Quadro M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS, nearly three times the Radeon R5 M330's 659.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The Radeon R5 M330 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with memory at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro M3000M has over 11 times the memory bandwidth, which directly impacts texture-heavy and large-buffer workloads.

API support also differs. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M3000M's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version are consistent with its more modern architecture. Power consumption is starkly different: the Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module slot, while the Radeon R5 M330 has an 18 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP). Neither card requires external power connectors, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins decisively with a score of 16,646 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M330's 4,302, a 286.9% advantage.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4,621, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average score of 4,170.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, compared to 320 on the AMD Radeon R5 M330.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a TDP of 18 W. The Radeon is an IGP, while the Quadro is an MXM Module.

Q: Which card has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has a higher boost clock at 1,030 MHz, compared to 924 MHz on the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. Despite the clock advantage, the Quadro still delivers far higher compute throughput.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the Exo chip with GCN 1.0. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors versus 690 million, and a die size of 398 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is 13.1M / mm² for the Quadro and 12.3M / mm² for the Radeon.

Clock speeds favor the Radeon: 955 MHz base and 1,030 MHz boost versus 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory clock also differs, with the Quadro at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and the Radeon at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective). Memory capacity is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the Quadro, versus 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for the Radeon. Bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Compute resources are heavily lopsided. The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

Power and interface differ as well. The Quadro has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot, while the Radeon has an 18 W TDP and is an IGP. Both use PCIe 3.0, but the Quadro uses x16 while the Radeon uses x8. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs and no power connectors. API support sees the Quadro at DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon is at DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro was released later, on 2015-08-17, versus 2015-05-04 for the Radeon.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is substantially faster in both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with a 286.9% lead in OpenCL and a 312.9% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4,621 is 10.8% higher than the Radeon R5 M330's 4,170, and it sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs versus the Radeon's 25th percentile. The Quadro M3000M also has a significant memory bandwidth advantage (160.4 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), more than three times the shading units (1,024 versus 320), and a higher FP32 throughput (1.892 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS).

The AMD Radeon R5 M330 does have advantages, but they are not in raw performance. Its 18 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient than the 75 W Quadro M3000M, and its IGP form factor allows for integration into compact systems. It also has higher clock speeds, with a 1,030 MHz boost versus 924 MHz, which partially offsets its smaller execution footprint. For workloads that are latency-bound or lightly threaded, the Radeon's higher clocks could matter, but the benchmark data does not support that in practice.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M for any task that demands compute throughput, large memory transfers, or modern API features. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 capability make it more future-proof for software that leverages these APIs. Pick the AMD Radeon R5 M330 for power-constrained designs where the 18 W TDP and IGP form factor are non-negotiable, and where the lower average score is an acceptable trade-off. The database shows a clear winner for performance, but the Radeon retains a role in low-power integrated applications.