AMD Radeon R5 M420 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and AMD Radeon R5 M420 represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, victory for the older professional-grade NVIDIA part in the single available benchmark, but the specifications reveal a more nuanced picture. Benchmark results indicate that while the Quadro K3000M leads in raw compute, the Radeon R5 M420 counters with advantages in memory capacity and API support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only comparative data point available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, while the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956. This yields a decisive win for the Quadro K3000M with a 7.2% performance advantage. In practical terms, this means the NVIDIA part completes OpenCL workloads noticeably faster, with the delta being significant enough to affect real-world tasks like video encoding or physics simulations that leverage GPU compute.

This 7.2% lead places the Quadro K3000M in a slightly stronger competitive position. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 3, scores 4268, which is only 0.6% higher. The Quadro K3000M also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M by 1% and the AMD FirePro W2100 by 1.3%, but it sits ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1.2%. This clustering within a narrow band of roughly 2.5% suggests that the K3000M is competitive with a wide range of GPUs from different generations and market segments.

The AMD Radeon R5 M420, with its score of 3956, finds itself in a similar competitive cluster, but at a lower absolute level. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, which scores 3957, a difference of just 0%. The R5 M420 also effectively ties with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, 0.2% behind). The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 scores 3977, placing it 0.5% ahead of the R5 M420. The data shows that the R5 M420 is performance-equivalent to a range of mid-range mobile GPUs from the 2013-2014 era, but it is definitively outclassed by the older professional Quadro part.

The overall benchmark record shows the Quadro K3000M winning the sole head-to-head test, giving it 1 win against 0 for the Radeon R5 M420. This is a clean sweep in the only metric measured, though the margin is not overwhelming.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die is substantial, measuring 294 mm² and containing 3,540 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon R5 M420 uses the Jet chip, based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, and belongs to the Gem System (R5 M400) generation. It is also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the die is much smaller at 56 mm². This smaller die contains only 690 million transistors, yielding a similar transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The near-identical transistor density indicates that both chips are using the same manufacturing node efficiently, but the NVIDIA chip has a far larger transistor budget.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon R5 M420 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA GPU has 80% more shading units, 140% more TMUs, and 300% more ROPs. These disparities directly impact the pixel rate (7.848 GPixel/s for NVIDIA vs 6.800 GPixel/s for AMD) and texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s vs 17.00 GTexel/s), explaining the Quadro's higher fill rates.

The memory subsystems are also completely different. The Quadro K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s. The Radeon R5 M420 uses 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a much narrower 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 5.6 times the memory bandwidth, which is a massive advantage for memory-intensive workloads. However, the AMD part has double the memory capacity, which can be beneficial for holding larger datasets that do not require high transfer speeds.

Clock speeds show a different story. The Radeon R5 M420 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 850 MHz, while the Quadro K3000M operates at a fixed 654 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD part compensates for its lower core count with higher clocks, but this does not overcome the NVIDIA GPU's raw resource advantage. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro K3000M runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the Radeon R5 M420 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher benchmark score in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, which is 7.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M420's score of 3956.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s, while the Radeon R5 M420 has a bandwidth of 16.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA part offers over five times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the respective transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Radeon R5 M420 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The AMD part has a slightly higher feature level.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 M420 has 320 shading units. This is a difference of 256 units in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What is the production status of these GPUs?

A: Both the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 are marked as end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GK104 (NVIDIA) vs Jet (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler vs GCN 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) vs Gem System (R5 M400)
• Transistors: 3,540 million vs 690 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² vs 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 654 MHz vs 780 MHz
• Boost Clock: 654 MHz vs 850 MHz
• Memory Clock: 700 MHz / 2.8 Gbps effective vs 1000 MHz / 2 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.60 GB/s vs 16.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 576 vs 320
• TMUs: 48 vs 20
• ROPs: 32 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 7.848 GPixel/s vs 6.800 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 31.39 GTexel/s vs 17.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 753.4 GFLOPS vs 544.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W vs not specified
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs IGP
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 vs 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2012-05-31 vs 2016-05-14
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M vs Solar System
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M vs Polaris Mobile
• Benchmark Score: 4241 vs 3956
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 25 vs 23

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins decisively in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 7.2% higher Geekbench OpenCL score. It also dominates in fill rates, with a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s. Its 256-bit GDDR5 memory interface provides 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, making it the clear choice for applications that are sensitive to memory throughput, such as high-resolution texture streaming or compute tasks with large data sets. The higher FP32 throughput of 753.4 GFLOPS further reinforces its position for general-purpose GPU computing.

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 wins in memory capacity, offering 4 GB compared to the Quadro's 2 GB. This could be an advantage for workloads that require loading large assets into VRAM, even if the transfer speed is lower. Its higher boost clock of 850 MHz does not translate into a performance win, but it does indicate a more modern design. The Radeon also has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)) and a marginally newer Vulkan version (1.2.170 vs 1.2.175, though the version numbers are close). Its smaller die size and lower transistor count suggest it is a more power-efficient design, although TDP figures are not provided for comparison.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M for users prioritizing compute performance. Its 7.2% lead in the benchmark, combined with a 5.6x advantage in memory bandwidth and superior fill rates, makes it the stronger GPU for demanding tasks. The professional Quadro lineage, indicated by its Kepler-M generation and MXM form factor, suggests it was designed for workstation-class applications where stability and compute throughput are paramount.

The AMD Radeon R5 M420, with its 4 GB of VRAM and newer release date, might be a better fit for users who need more memory capacity above all else, or who require the slightly higher DirectX 12 feature level. However, its lower compute score and significantly narrower memory bus mean it will struggle in scenarios that the Quadro handles with ease. The data does not support the Radeon as a performance alternative; it is best viewed as a more modern, but less capable, part. For any workload that leverages OpenCL compute or requires high memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the unambiguous choice based on the benchmark evidence.