AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data in this comparison is decisively one-sided. Across the two recorded tests, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 against the AMD Radeon R5 M430's 5,152. That is a delta of -69% from the AMD part's perspective, meaning the NVIDIA solution delivers roughly three times the compute throughput in this workload. The Vulkan test tells a nearly identical story: the Quadro M3000M posts 16,668, while the Radeon R5 M430 manages 4,884, a -70.7% delta. The NVIDIA card is ahead by a factor of about 3.4 in Vulkan.

These are not close results, and they do not require nuanced interpretation. The Quadro M3000M is in a different performance class entirely. For context, the Radeon R5 M430's average benchmark score across all recorded tests sits at 5,018, which places it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are all within a hair of its score: the AMD FirePro W4170M averages 5,034 (-0.3%), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics averages 4,998 (+0.4%), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 averages 4,979 (+0.8%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 averages 5,063 (-0.9%). The R5 M430 is essentially at the bottom of its peer group, and it is not a meaningful outlier in either direction.

The Quadro M3000M, meanwhile, has an average benchmark score of 4,621, which is lower than the R5 M430's average. That seems counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it is explained by the broader test suite recorded for the Quadro. The M3000M has nine recorded benchmarks, including several Passmark tests where it scores very low: Passmark DirectX 10 at 26, DirectX 11 at 42, DirectX 12 at 23, and DirectX 9 at 98. These legacy API tests drag down its average. The R5 M430 only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which are Geekbench tests, so its average is not diluted by low-scoring legacy workloads. The Quadro M3000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 (-0.1%), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 at 4,657 (-0.8%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4,657 (-0.8%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4,577 (+1%). The M3000M sits right in that cluster, but its percentile ranking of 27 versus the R5 M430's 30 is misleading; the percentile is calculated against all GPUs, and the M3000M's low Passmark scores pull it down.

The practical takeaway from the head-to-head data is simple: if the workload is OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Quadro M3000M dominates. The R5 M430 does not have a single recorded win in this comparison. There is no scenario in the database where the AMD part comes out ahead. The delta percentages are consistent, and the margin is roughly 3x in both tests. That is not a marginal advantage; it is a generational gap in raw compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies entirely. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 uses the Jet chip, built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a die size of 56 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip, based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also fabricated on 28 nm at TSMC, but with vastly different scale: 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for a density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The M3000M is nearly 7.5 times larger in transistor count and over 7 times larger in die area.

The R5 M430 is an integrated graphics product, marked as "IGP" slot width, meaning it is designed to be embedded into a portable device. The Quadro M3000M is an MXM module, a removable mobile graphics card. The R5 M430 connects over PCIe 3.0 x8, while the M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, giving the NVIDIA part double the interface bandwidth.

Memory configuration differs sharply. The R5 M430 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M3000M also has 4 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. That is a 10x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card. The memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) for the AMD part versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the M3000M. The R5 M430 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 3.2x the shading units, 3.2x the TMUs, and 4x the ROPs. Pixel rate for the AMD part is 6.840 GPixel/s versus 29.57 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 547.2 GFLOPS versus 1.892 TFLOPS; the M3000M is roughly 3.5x faster in raw floating-point compute.

Clock speeds are closer than the rest of the specification would suggest. The R5 M430 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. The M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part is slightly higher, but the real gap is in the sheer number of execution units, not clock speed.

API support differs as well. The R5 M430 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level is higher on the NVIDIA part, and the Vulkan version is newer.

Power draw is recorded only for the NVIDIA part: 75 W TDP. The R5 M430 has no TDP listed in the database, but given its IGP nature and small die, it is reasonable to assume it consumes far less. The M3000M has no power connectors, relying on the MXM slot for power delivery.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior GPU in every measured head-to-head benchmark. The Radeon R5 M430 does not win a single test in this comparison. The OpenCL and Vulkan scores show roughly a 3x advantage for the NVIDIA part, and the architectural specifications confirm why: more than triple the shading units, 10x the memory bandwidth, and a 256-bit bus versus 64-bit.

The R5 M430 is an entry-level integrated solution. It fits into the bottom tier of the database, sitting at the 30th percentile with an average score of 5,018. Its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its score, meaning it is exactly where it belongs: at the low end. The M3000M, despite its lower average benchmark score of 4,621, is dragged down by legacy Passmark tests. In the two modern compute workloads recorded, it is dramatically ahead.

Who should pick which? If the task is any GPU-accelerated compute work, OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M3000M is the only rational choice. The margin is so large that the R5 M430 is not competitive in the same workload class. If the task is simple 2D display output or very light graphics acceleration in a portable device, the R5 M430 is sufficient because it is integrated and requires no separate module. But for any serious rendering, compute, or professional workload, the M3000M wins outright.

The R5 M430's only advantage is that it is an IGP, meaning it is built into the system and costs nothing extra in terms of space or power. The M3000M is a dedicated MXM module with a 75 W TDP. If power consumption is the absolute priority and the workload is trivial, the R5 M430 is acceptable. Otherwise, the Quadro M3000M is the pick.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: AMD uses Jet; NVIDIA uses GM204.
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Maxwell 2.0.
• Transistors: 690 million versus 5,200 million.
• Die size: 56 mm² versus 398 mm².
• Transistor density: 12.3M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm².
• Base clock: 780 MHz versus 823 MHz.
• Boost clock: 855 MHz versus 924 MHz.
• Memory clock: 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5.
• Bus width: 64 bit versus 256 bit.
• Bandwidth: 16.00 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s.
• Shading units: 320 versus 1,024.
• TMUs: 20 versus 64.
• ROPs: 8 versus 32.
• Pixel rate: 6.840 GPixel/s versus 29.57 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: 17.10 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 547.2 GFLOPS versus 1.892 TFLOPS.
• TDP: not listed versus 75 W.
• Slot width: IGP versus MXM Module.
• Power connectors: none listed versus none.
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.
• DirectX support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1).
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4.
• Release date: not listed versus 2015-08-17.

Fields that are identical: process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size (4 GB), OpenGL version (4.6), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), and production status (End-of-life).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5,152. That is a -69% delta for the AMD part.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R5 M430 win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The recorded data shows the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M winning both head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the AMD part.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The Radeon R5 M430 has 16.00 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro M3000M has 160.4 GB/s from GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are marked as End-of-life in the database. The Quadro M3000M has a recorded release date of 2015-08-17; the Radeon R5 M430 has no release date listed.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Radeon R5 M430 averages 5,018, placing it at the 30th percentile. The Quadro M3000M averages 4,621, placing it at the 27th percentile, though its average is lowered by several low Passmark scores.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon R5 M430 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the measured data, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both recorded benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The margins are 3x or larger. If the use case is any form of GPU compute, rendering, or modern graphics API workload, the M3000M is the clear choice. Its 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs provide the execution resources necessary to handle professional workloads. Its 160.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth is ten times that of the R5 M430, which matters for texture-heavy scenes or large data sets. The M3000M also has a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), which means better support for current software.

The AMD Radeon R5 M430 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its only situational advantage comes from its physical nature: it is an IGP, integrated into the system, with no power connectors and no TDP listed. In a portable device where a discrete MXM module cannot be installed, the R5 M430 is the only option. It also uses PCIe 3.0 x8 instead of x16, which is a lower interface requirement, and it has a much smaller die (56 mm² versus 398 mm²), meaning it occupies less space and likely generates less heat. If the workload is limited to basic display output or very light acceleration, the R5 M430 is functionally adequate.

In terms of raw performance, the Quadro M3000M is the winner in every measured category. The R5 M430 should only be considered when the platform physically cannot accommodate a discrete module. For anyone comparing these two as viable alternatives, the data points squarely to the NVIDIA part.