AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

# Opening paragraph.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and AMD Radeon R5 M335 as database entries show a clear hierarchy: the K3100M is a large discrete mobile professional GPU from 2013 with a full benchmark presence in the database holds a 30th percentile, from the record, no price; the R5 M335 from the database comparisons show a lower average score percentile 28: "avgBenchmarkScore" 5154 vs 4752. The K3100M wins both shared tests, and the data shows the gap is widest in OpenCL. Both are end-of-life mobile parts, but the architecture and memory system differences are substantial. The following sections break down where each wins, answer common questions, and detail the benchmark and specification gaps.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database. The only two shared tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the K3100M takes first place in each. In OpenCL, the K3100M scores 6154 against the Radeon R5 M335's 4745, a 29.7% advantage. In Vulkan, the K3100M scores 5484 versus 4758, a 15.3% lead. No benchmark in the database shows the AMD part winning against the NVIDIA part.

The Radeon R5 M335, however, has a different profile in its own rival list. Its average score of 4752 places it 0.5% above the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) and 1.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684), but 0.7% below the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788) and 0.8% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791). The K3100M, by comparison, sits 1.8% above the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063) and just 0.1% below the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161), 1.1% below the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211), and 1.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236). So the K3100M is competitive with a cluster of mid-range mobile and desktop parts from its era, while the R5 M335 sits in a lower performance tier.

The K3100M also has a broader benchmark footprint: the database records three tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan) for it, while the R5 M335 only has two (OpenCL, Vulkan). The K3100M's Metal score of 3823 is not directly comparable to any R5 M335 result, but it adds to the NVIDIA part's overall average. The R5 M335's absence of a Metal result means its average is built from fewer data points, which can affect percentile comparisons.

In terms of use cases, the K3100M is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads that use OpenCL or Vulkan, based on the recorded scores. The R5 M335, while slower in these tests, does have a Vulkan score that is closer to the K3100M's (4758 vs 5484, a 15.3% gap) than its OpenCL score is (4745 vs 6154, a 29.7% gap). This suggests the AMD part is relatively less disadvantaged in Vulkan, but it still loses.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, with an average score of 5154, versus the AMD Radeon R5 M335's 4752. That is a difference of 402 points, or about 8.5% higher for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in a shared test?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the K3100M scores 6154 and the R5 M335 scores 4745, a 29.7% difference. The Vulkan gap is smaller at 15.3% (5484 vs 4758).

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The K3100M is in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M335 is in the 28th percentile. The K3100M's average score of 5154 is higher than the R5 M335's 4752, which aligns with the percentile ranking.

Q: Does the R5 M335 win any benchmark against the K3100M?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the K3100M wins both. The database shows zero wins for the R5 M335 against the K3100M.

Q: What is the R5 M335's closest rival according to the database?

A: The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, with an average score of 4727, is 0.5% below the R5 M335's 4752. The R5 M335 also sits 1.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684) and 0.7% below the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788).

Q: Which GPU has a higher peak FP32 compute rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, with 1,084.4 GFLOPS, versus the AMD Radeon R5 M335's 659.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is about 64% higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and the AMD Radeon R5 M335: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the K3100M is the winner, but the margin differs significantly.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the K3100M scores 6154, while the R5 M335 scores 4745. The delta is 29.7% in favor of the NVIDIA part. This is a substantial lead, and it reflects the K3100M's larger shading unit count (768 vs 320), higher texture rate (45.18 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), and much higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s). The OpenCL test is compute-heavy, so the K3100M's raw resource advantage shows clearly.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the K3100M scores 5484, and the R5 M335 scores 4758. The delta is 15.3% in favor of the K3100M. The Vulkan gap is narrower than the OpenCL gap, which suggests that the R5 M335's architecture handles Vulkan workloads relatively better, possibly due to its GCN 1.0 design. However, the K3100M still wins by a comfortable margin.

Looking at the rival lists for context, the K3100M's OpenCL score of 6154 is well above its own average of 5154, while the R5 M335's OpenCL score of 4745 is just slightly below its average of 4752. For Vulkan, the K3100M's 5484 is above its average, and the R5 M335's 4758 is nearly identical to its average. This means the K3100M tends to perform better in these specific tests than its overall average would suggest, while the R5 M335 is more consistent.

The K3100M's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, has an average score of 5161, which is just 0.1% above the K3100M's 5154. That rival is also a mobile part with a similar performance class. The R5 M335's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, has an average of 4727, 0.5% below the R5 M335. These rival comparisons show that both GPUs sit in their respective performance tiers, but the tiers are clearly different: the K3100M's tier is roughly 8-9% higher in average score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses a 256-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon R5 M335 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of DDR3 memory. The resulting bandwidth is 102.4 GB/s for the K3100M versus 14.40 GB/s for the R5 M335, a 7.1x difference. The K3100M's memory clock is listed as 3.2 Gbps effective, while the R5 M335's is 1800 Mbps effective.

The shading unit count is 768 for the K3100M versus 320 for the R5 M335. Texture mapping units are 64 versus 20, and ROPs are 32 versus 8. The K3100M's pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s for the R5 M335. Texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds are only partially recorded. The K3100M has a base and boost clock of 706 MHz each, while the R5 M335 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The K3100M's TDP is 75 W, while the R5 M335 has no TDP recorded. The K3100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the R5 M335 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The K3100M is an MXM Module in slot width, while the R5 M335 has no slot width listed. Both have no power connectors.

Neither GPU has a launch MSRP in the database. The K3100M was released on 2013-07-22, and the R5 M335 was released on 2015-10-20. The K3100M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. The R5 M335's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It uses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The R5 M335 is built on GCN 1.0 with the Exo chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3M per mm². The K3100M has a much larger die and 5.1x more transistors.

The K3100M's Kepler architecture is from NVIDIA's Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx100M), and it supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R5 M335's GCN 1.0 is from the Gem System (R5 M300) generation, and it supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX version is slightly higher on the AMD part (11_1 vs 11_0), but the Vulkan version is slightly higher on the NVIDIA part (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170).

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both have no FP16 capability listed. The K3100M's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent", as are the R5 M335's. The K3100M has a 75 W TDP, while the R5 M335 has no TDP record.

The memory architecture differences are rooted in the chip design: the K3100M's 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory are typical of a higher-end part, while the R5 M335's 64-bit bus and DDR3 memory indicate a low-power, entry-level design. The K3100M's transistor density is slightly lower (12.0M vs 12.3M per mm²), but the absolute transistor count is much higher, reflecting a more complex GPU.

Both parts are end-of-life, but the K3100M was released over two years earlier. The K3100M's successor, Quadro Maxwell-M, and the R5 M335's successor, Polaris Mobile, show that both companies moved on to newer architectures. The database shows the K3100M as the faster part in every recorded comparison, and the architecture differences support that conclusion.