AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and AMD Radeon R5 M430 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The data from the two head-to-head benchmark tests shows a clear and consistent winner, but the margin of victory and the architectural reasons behind it reveal a more nuanced story than a simple performance ranking. The Quadro K3100M wins both available benchmarks, but the question is whether its lead is insurmountable in all scenarios and what the underlying hardware trade-offs mean for a potential buyer.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, a compute-oriented workload. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 against the AMD Radeon R5 M430's 5152. That is a substantial 19.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This is not a marginal win; it is a significant gap in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL score is often a proxy for general-purpose GPU compute tasks, and such a lead suggests the Quadro K3100M handles parallel processing workloads with considerably more headroom.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still decisive margin. The Quadro K3100M posts 5484 points, while the Radeon R5 M430 manages 4884. The 12.3% delta is smaller than in OpenCL, but it still firmly favors the NVIDIA solution. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the closer result here hints that the AMD part's architecture is not entirely outclassed in modern rendering paths, even if it cannot overcome the NVIDIA card's overall hardware advantage.

Looking at the broader context, the Quadro K3100M's average benchmark score is 5154, which places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (scoring 5161, a -0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (scoring 5211, a -1.1% delta). This shows the Quadro K3100M is sitting in a very tight competitive cluster where a few points separate it from its peers. The Radeon R5 M430, in contrast, has an average score of 5018, also at the 30th percentile. Its closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (-0.3%), showing that the R5 M430 is similarly positioned in a dense pack of low-mid-range mobile GPUs.

The head-to-head data therefore tells us that while the Quadro K3100M is the clear victor, neither card is a performance outlier in its respective class. The 19.4% OpenCL win is the standout figure, demonstrating a significant compute advantage, while the 12.3% Vulkan win reinforces the overall trend. The R5 M430's scores are not embarrassing; they are simply lower across the board, with no benchmark where it manages to pull ahead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, and it explains the benchmark results. The Quadro K3100M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, which is a large, high-end design manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². In contrast, the Radeon R5 M430 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the "Jet" chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but it is a tiny, low-power part. The Jet chip contains only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 12.3M per mm².

The core configs tell the story of scale. The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon R5 M430 is far less endowed, with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This 2.4x difference in shading units and 4x difference in ROPs directly translates to the compute performance gap seen in the benchmarks. The NVIDIA card's pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s, while the AMD part manages only 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is stark: 1,084.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon, a near-exact doubling.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Quadro K3100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Radeon R5 M430 also has 4 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in a paltry 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. That is a 6.4x difference in memory bandwidth, which is critical for many workloads and explains why the NVIDIA card sustains higher performance in texture-heavy scenes.

Clock speeds are the only area where AMD shows an advantage. The R5 M430 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost of 855 MHz, while the Quadro K3100M is locked at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. However, this higher clock speed cannot compensate for the massive differences in core count and memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA part also has a higher effective memory clock at 3.2 Gbps versus the AMD's 2.0 Gbps, further widening the bandwidth gap.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in every measured category. It is the superior choice for any workload that relies on compute performance, as evidenced by its 19.4% lead in OpenCL. For graphics rendering under Vulkan, it also holds a 12.3% edge, making it the better option for modern gaming or professional 3D applications that leverage this API. The sheer difference in texture fill rate (45.18 vs 17.10 GTexel/s) suggests the Quadro will handle high-resolution textures and complex scenes with far more fluidity.

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 does not win any of the head-to-head benchmarks. However, its strengths lie elsewhere. The data does not show a performance win, but the architectural profile suggests a different use case. With a lower transistor count and a much smaller die, the R5 M430 is clearly designed for efficiency and low power consumption. The fact that its TDP is listed as null in the data (meaning it is not specified) but its slot width is "IGP" (Integrated Graphics Processor) hints that it is meant for basic, everyday tasks. It is not a competitor for demanding workloads; it is a part for light productivity, video playback, and casual use where the Quadro's extra horsepower is unnecessary.

For a user who needs to run GPU-accelerated compute or modern games, the Quadro K3100M is the only logical choice. For someone who needs a basic discrete GPU for a laptop that will never see heavy 3D loads, the R5 M430 would suffice, but the data does not show any scenario where it outperforms the NVIDIA part.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs diverge on nearly every major feature. The most glaring difference is in memory bandwidth: the Quadro K3100M offers 102.4 GB/s from its GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the Radeon R5 M430 is limited to 16.00 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This is a 6.4x difference and is the single largest spec gap.

Core counts are similarly lopsided. The Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the AMD's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FP32 compute rating is 1,084.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA and 547.2 GFLOPS for AMD. Pixel and texture rates follow suit, with the NVIDIA card posting 11.30 GPixel/s and 45.18 GTexel/s versus AMD's 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds are one field where the AMD card is higher. The R5 M430 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the Quadro K3100M is fixed at 706 MHz. The memory clock is also different, with NVIDIA at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) and AMD at 1000 MHz (2.0 Gbps effective).

The bus interface differs as well. The Quadro K3100M uses MXM-B (3.0), which is a modular mobile PCIe form factor, while the Radeon R5 M430 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and is classified as an IGP. The TDP for the Quadro is listed at 75 W, while the AMD part's TDP is null. The transistor counts are starkly different: 3,540 million for NVIDIA versus 690 million for AMD. The die size is 294 mm² versus 56 mm². Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro is at 12 (11_0) while the AMD is at 12 (11_1). OpenGL is identical at 4.6, and Vulkan support is 1.2.175 for NVIDIA and 1.2.170 for AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is faster, scoring 6154 versus the AMD Radeon R5 M430's 5152, a 19.4% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Quadro K3100M has a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the Radeon R5 M430 has only 16.00 GB/s. This is a 6.4x difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. However, the Quadro K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon R5 M430 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX version is also slightly different: 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA and 12 (11_1) for AMD.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, whereas the AMD Radeon R5 M430 has 320 shading units.

Q: What are the transistor counts for these chips?

A: The Quadro K3100M's GK104 chip has 3,540 million transistors, while the Radeon R5 M430's Jet chip has 690 million transistors.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Radeon R5 M430 wins?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins both, with the AMD card trailing by 19.4% and 12.3%, respectively.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the superior performer in every measured metric. Its 19.4% lead in OpenCL and 12.3% lead in Vulkan are decisive, and the underlying specifications support this dominance. With over twice the shading units, six times the memory bandwidth, and double the FP32 throughput, the Quadro K3100M is built for serious compute and graphics work. The Radeon R5 M430, with its small die and low transistor count, is a basic mobile part that cannot compete on raw performance.

Who should pick the AMD Radeon R5 M430? The data suggests only those who are certain their workloads will never stress the GPU. Its lower clock speeds (780 MHz base vs 706 MHz) and smaller footprint hint at efficiency, but the absence of any performance win makes it a hard sell for any performance-oriented task. For a user who runs GPU-accelerated applications, plays modern games, or does any 3D rendering, the Quadro K3100M is the only choice based on the benchmark results. The Quadro's higher pixel rate (11.30 GPixel/s) and texture rate (45.18 GTexel/s) ensure it will handle demanding visual workloads with less strain. The verdict is clear: the Quadro K3100M wins decisively, and the R5 M430 is only suitable for the most basic of tasks where its lower specifications are acceptable.