AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M occupy very different corners of the mobile GPU market, and the benchmark data confirms this is not a close contest. The Quadro M3000M holds a commanding lead in every available head-to-head test, with the R5 M335 trailing by a massive margin. Despite both products being end-of-life mobile parts built on the same 28 nm TSMC process, their architectural and specification differences translate into a performance gap that is impossible to ignore. The data shows an average benchmark score of 4,752 for the R5 M335 versus 4,621 for the Quadro M3000M, but that aggregate figure is misleading—it is dragged down by the Quadro's additional DirectX and 2D tests, while the two shared Geekbench tests tell the real story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmarks between these two GPUs are the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, and the results are stark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 against the R5 M335's 4,745, a delta of -71.5% for the AMD part. That is not a marginal win; it is a factor of roughly 3.5x in raw compute performance. The Vulkan test tells the same story: the Quadro scores 16,668 while the R5 M335 manages 4,758, again a -71.5% delta. In both tests, the NVIDIA part wins outright, and the AMD part is left at less than 30% of the Quadro's score.

To put the R5 M335's position into context, its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4,727 (0.5% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB at 4,791 (0.8% faster). That is a striking data point: the R5 M335 sits within 1% of a modern flagship desktop GPU in this particular benchmark, which tells you more about the benchmark's sensitivity to mobile entry-level parts than about the R5 M335's actual capability. The Quadro M3000M, by contrast, sits within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 970M (4,628) and within 0.8% of both the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4,657 each). The Quadro's position among these rivals is much more credible for a mid-range professional mobile GPU.

The Quadro M3000M also has a broader benchmark footprint, with nine recorded tests spanning DirectX 9 through 12, 2D, and compute. Its Passmark G3D score of 5,543 and GPU compute score of 2,139 are not directly comparable to the R5 M335 (which has no Passmark results), but they provide additional evidence of its multi-faceted performance. The R5 M335 has only two benchmarks in the entire database, both Geekbench, and both losses.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference is the GPU architecture. The R5 M335 uses GCN 1.0, AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next design, built around the "Exo" chip. The Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0, NVIDIA's second-generation Maxwell architecture, built on the GM204 chip. Both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts are wildly different: the R5 M335 packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. That is roughly 7.5x the transistor count and 7.1x the die area. Transistor density is similar—12.3 million per mm² for AMD versus 13.1 million per mm² for NVIDIA—so the difference is purely a matter of scale, not process efficiency.

The compute resources follow the same pattern. The R5 M335 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In every category, the Quadro has exactly 3.2x, 3.2x, and 4.0x the respective resources. The clock speeds are also higher on the Quadro: a base clock of 823 MHz and boost of 924 MHz, versus no published base or boost clock for the R5 M335. The memory clocks differ as well, with the Quadro running at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the R5 M335's 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective).

The memory subsystem is another major divergence. The R5 M335 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s—over 11x more memory bandwidth. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the AMD part, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the NVIDIA part.

The API support tells a subtle story. Both support DirectX 12, but the R5 M335 is limited to feature level 11_1, while the Quadro M3000M supports feature level 12_1. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the R5 M335 supports version 1.2.170, while the Quadro supports version 1.4. The Quadro also has a specified TDP of 75 W, while the R5 M335 has no TDP listed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M3000M wins in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and feature support. The R5 M335 does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. But that does not mean the R5 M335 has no use case—it simply has a much narrower one.

The R5 M335 is a low-power, entry-level mobile part with no power connectors and no specified TDP. It is designed for basic 2D acceleration, light media playback, and undemanding legacy workloads. Its 14.40 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 659.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance are sufficient for office productivity and casual use, but nothing more. Its close proximity to the Radeon R8 M445DX (0.5% faster) and R5 M255 (0.7% slower) in average score suggests it is firmly in the bottom tier of mobile GPUs, sitting at the 28th percentile of all GPUs.

The Quadro M3000M, by contrast, is a professional-grade mobile workstation part. Its 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 160.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 4 GB of GDDR5 make it suitable for CAD, 3D modeling, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks. Its Passmark G3D score of 5,543 and GPU compute score of 2,139 reinforce this positioning. It sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, which sounds low but is actually in the same ballpark as the GeForce GTX 970M (0.1% difference) and the RX 9060 XT 16 GB (0.8% difference)—both of which are far more capable than the R5 M335's rivals.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M335's 4,745, a -71.5% delta. The Quadro is roughly 3.5x faster in this test.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but the R5 M335 is limited to feature level 11_1, while the Quadro M3000M supports feature level 12_1.

Q: What memory type and bandwidth does each GPU use?

A: The R5 M335 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M335 is within 0.8% of the GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4,791) and 0.5% of the Radeon R8 M445DX (4,727). The Quadro M3000M is within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 970M (4,628) and 0.8% of the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4,657).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The R5 M335 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die—roughly 7.5x more.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, while the R5 M335 has 320. The Quadro also has 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the R5 M335.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for anyone needing compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the clear choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by 71.5%, offers over 11x the memory bandwidth, has 3.2x the shading units and TMUs, and supports a higher DirectX feature level. Its 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth are in a different class from the R5 M335's 659.2 GFLOPS and 14.40 GB/s.

The R5 M335 is not a competitor to the Quadro M3000M; it is a different category of product. The data shows it is competitive with other entry-level mobile parts like the Radeon R8 M445DX and R5 M255, all clustered around 4,700–4,800 in average score. The Quadro M3000M's average score of 4,621 is actually lower than the R5 M335's 4,752, but that is solely because the Quadro has nine benchmarks including low DirectX and 2D scores, while the R5 M335 only has two Geekbench results. The head-to-head tests are the only fair comparison, and they are decisive.

For a professional workstation user, the Quadro M3000M is the only rational pick. For a basic laptop user who needs no compute performance, the R5 M335 will handle simple tasks, but there is no scenario in the data where it outperforms the Quadro. The verdict is simple: if you must choose between these two, choose the Quadro M3000M for its overwhelming performance advantage, and choose the R5 M335 only if you have no performance requirements at all.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M335 | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Exo | GM204 |

| Transistors | 690 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None listed | 823 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 924 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) | 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 1,024 |

| TMUs | 20 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 29.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 59.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 659.2 GFLOPS | 1.892 TFLOPS |

| TDP | None listed | 75 W |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-10-20 | 2015-08-17 |