AMD Radeon R5 M420 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different eras, but benchmark data shows they land in a similar performance class. The R5 M420 edges out the Quadro 3000M in the only available head-to-head test, scoring 3956 against 3718 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 6.4% advantage. Both chips sit near the bottom of the performance spectrum, with the R5 M420 at the 23rd percentile and the Quadro 3000M at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. The R5 M420 is the more modern part, built on a 28 nm process versus the Quadro's 40 nm node, and it offers a much higher transistor density despite having fewer total transistors.

The Verdict

The R5 M420 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, so it is the better choice for raw compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3956 is 6.4% higher than the Quadro 3000M's 3718, and it also holds a slight edge in percentile ranking (23rd vs 22nd). If you are choosing strictly on measured performance, the AMD part is the one to pick.

However, the Quadro 3000M is not without merit. It carries the Quadro name, which historically implies certification and driver optimization for professional applications, but the data here does not include any professional workload tests. The Quadro 3000M does have a wider 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory, which gives it 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the R5 M420's 16.00 GB/s. That 5x bandwidth advantage could matter in memory-bound tasks, but it did not translate into a win in the OpenCL benchmark.

For a builder or buyer deciding between these two, the R5 M420 is the safer bet for general compute performance. The Quadro 3000M might be preferable if you specifically need its 75 W TDP rating for power planning in a laptop chassis, or if you value the larger memory bus for specific workloads not captured in the OpenCL test. But based on the data, the AMD part is faster.

Architecture Differences

The R5 M420 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Jet, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Quadro 3000M uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, also manufactured by TSMC, but on a larger 40 nm process. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, for a density of only 5.9M per mm².

The R5 M420 has more shading units at 320, compared to the Quadro 3000M's 240. However, the Quadro 3000M has more texture mapping units (40 vs 20) and more render output units (32 vs 8). This is a classic trade-off: AMD's part has more compute cores, while NVIDIA's part has more fixed-function throughput for texturing and pixel output. The R5 M420's pixel rate is 6.800 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s for the Quadro, but the Quadro's texture rate is 18.00 GTexel/s versus 17.00 GTexel/s for the AMD.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The R5 M420 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro's memory clock is lower at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) versus the R5 M420's 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), but the wider bus gives the NVIDIA part a massive bandwidth advantage.

The R5 M420 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 3000M has DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The R5 M420 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro 3000M uses MXM-B (3.0). The R5 M420 is an integrated GPU (IGP) form factor, while the Quadro is an MXM module.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The R5 M420 scores 3956, and the Quadro 3000M scores 3718. That gives the AMD part a 6.4% win. To put that in context, the R5 M420's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, which scores 3957 — a 0% delta. The Quadro 3000M's closest competitor is the GeForce GT 740M at 3717, also a 0% delta.

The R5 M420's score of 3956 puts it just 0.1% behind the GeForce GT 745M (3953) and 0.2% behind the Quadro K2000 (3964). It is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) and 0% behind the GeForce 830M. This means the R5 M420 is effectively in a dead heat with several mid-range mobile GPUs from the same era.

The Quadro 3000M's score of 3718 is 0.6% ahead of the GeForce GT 635M (3740) and 0.6% behind the GeForce 825M (3694). It is 1.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649). The Quadro 3000M's absolute score is lower, but it is similarly clustered with its rivals, showing that both chips are in the same performance tier despite the architectural differences.

The 6.4% delta between the two is the only head-to-head result, and it is consistent with the percentile rankings. The R5 M420 is marginally better in compute performance, but the margin is small enough that real-world differences would be hard to notice outside of synthetic benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The R5 M420 is built on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 3000M uses 40 nm. Transistor count is 690 million vs 1,950 million, and die size is 56 mm² vs 332 mm². The R5 M420 has a higher transistor density at 12.3M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm².

Clock speeds: the R5 M420 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost of 850 MHz, while the Quadro 3000M lists no base or boost clocks. Memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the AMD and 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA.

Memory: the R5 M420 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 5x difference in bandwidth.

Compute units: the R5 M420 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R5 M420 has higher pixel rate (6.800 GPixel/s vs 4.500 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (544.0 GFLOPS vs 432.0 GFLOPS). The Quadro has a slightly higher texture rate (18.00 GTexel/s vs 17.00 GTexel/s).

Power and form factor: the Quadro 3000M is rated at 75 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors. The R5 M420 has no TDP listed and is an IGP form factor. The R5 M420 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0).

API support: the R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The R5 M420 was released on 2016-05-14, while the Quadro 3000M was released on 2011-02-21.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M420. It scores 3956 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 3718. It also has higher FP32 throughput at 544.0 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Quadro 3000M have any advantages despite losing the benchmark?

A: Yes. It has a much wider 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory, giving it 80.00 GB/s bandwidth versus the R5 M420's 16.00 GB/s. It also has more TMUs (40 vs 20) and more ROPs (32 vs 8), and a higher texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s.

Q: Why does the R5 M420 have a higher percentile ranking?

A: The R5 M420 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 3000M is at the 22nd. The difference is small, but it aligns with the 6.4% benchmark advantage the R5 M420 holds over the Quadro.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The data does not list a TDP for the R5 M420, so a direct comparison is not possible. The Quadro 3000M is rated at 75 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors. The R5 M420 is an IGP, which typically implies lower power draw, but no number is provided.

Q: Can the Quadro 3000M run Vulkan applications?

A: No. The Quadro 3000M does not list Vulkan support in its API specifications. The R5 M420 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

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

A: The R5 M420 is effectively tied with the GeForce 830M (3957, 0% delta) and GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.1% delta). The Quadro 3000M is tied with the GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0% delta) and is 1.9% ahead of the Radeon HD 6770 (3649).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 wins in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3956 beats the Quadro 3000M's 3718, and it has a higher FP32 rating at 544.0 GFLOPS. It also wins on shading units with 320 versus 240, and its pixel rate of 6.800 GPixel/s is higher. The R5 M420 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, making it the only one of the two that can run Vulkan workloads. It also has a smaller die (56 mm²) and higher transistor density (12.3M / mm²), which reflects its more modern 28 nm manufacturing process.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins in memory bandwidth and fixed-function throughput. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is 5 times higher than the R5 M420's 16.00 GB/s, thanks to the 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory. It also has double the TMUs (40 vs 20) and four times the ROPs (32 vs 8), giving it a higher texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s. The Quadro's 75 W TDP is documented, which may be useful for system builders who need a known power envelope. Its MXM module form factor is also a distinct physical design compared to the R5 M420's IGP.

For memory-heavy workloads like large texture streaming or high-resolution framebuffers, the Quadro 3000M's bandwidth advantage could be decisive. For compute-heavy tasks that rely on shader throughput, the R5 M420's higher shading unit count and FP32 output make it the better pick. The data only includes one benchmark, so the practical split is narrow, but the architectural differences point to these distinct strengths.