AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded for both GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859. That puts the NVIDIA part 4.8% ahead of the AMD part. It is a clear win, but not a dominant one. The delta is small enough that real-world differences in driver behavior or thermal conditions could shift the result in specific workloads.

The Radeon R5 M435 does not have a recorded Geekbench Metal or Vulkan score in the database, so its overall average benchmark score is simply its OpenCL result of 5859. The Quadro K3100M, by contrast, has three recorded benchmarks: OpenCL at 6154, Vulkan at 5484, and Metal at 3823. Its average benchmark score across those tests is 5154, which is pulled down significantly by the Metal result. This creates an interesting situation where the Quadro wins the head-to-head OpenCL comparison, yet its average score across all tests is lower than the Radeon's single-test average. The OpenCL result is the more representative comparison for cross-vendor compute workloads, and there the Quadro leads by 4.8%.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Radeon R5 M435 sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K3100M sits at the 30th percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, the Radeon actually ranks slightly higher in the overall distribution. This is because the Quadro's average is dragged down by its weaker Metal and Vulkan results. The percentile data confirms that both are entry-level or older mobile parts, neither breaking into the upper half of the database.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning. The Radeon R5 M435's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M465, which averages 5841, a 0.3% difference. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 sits 1.2% ahead, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M sits 1.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M also sits 1.6% ahead. These are all very tight margins, indicating the Radeon R5 M435 is squarely in a crowded performance band. The Quadro K3100M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161, which is 0.1% behind, and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063, which is 1.8% behind. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M sits 1.1% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M sits 1.6% ahead. Again, a tight cluster.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K3100M wins the compute-focused OpenCL test by 4.8%. This is the strongest evidence of a performance advantage, and it aligns with the Quadro's much larger silicon and memory subsystem. The Quadro also shows a Vulkan score of 5484, which is 10.9% below its OpenCL score but still respectable. Its Metal score of 3823 is notably lower, suggesting that Metal workloads are not this GPU's strength.

The Radeon R5 M435, with only a single benchmark result, wins in consistency. Its average benchmark score of 5859 is higher than the Quadro's average of 5154, a 13.7% advantage. That advantage is entirely due to the Quadro's weak Metal showing, but it still matters for anyone comparing aggregate database scores. The Radeon also carries a higher percentile ranking at 33 versus 30, meaning it sits above a slightly larger share of the GPU population.

For compute-heavy tasks that use OpenCL, the Quadro is the better choice. For users who care about the overall benchmark profile, the Radeon looks more balanced because its single recorded score does not include a weak API-specific result. The Quadro's Vulkan score of 5484 is higher than the Radeon's entire OpenCL result of 5859 by a wide margin, but without a Radeon Vulkan score to compare, that cannot be used as a direct head-to-head win.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on the Jet chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node is identical, but the silicon itself is very different in scale.

The Quadro's GK104 die is 294 mm², compared to the Radeon's 56 mm². That is a 425% larger die. Transistor counts tell a similar story: the Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors, the Radeon just 690 million. The transistor density is nearly identical at 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro and 12.3M per mm² for the Radeon, which makes sense given the same process node and foundry. The size difference is purely a matter of how much silicon each company chose to deploy.

The Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has more than double the shading units and triple the ROPs. Memory is another major split: the Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Radeon has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64 bit bus, delivering 36.00 GB/s. That is nearly three times the memory bandwidth on the Quadro.

Clock speeds go the other way. The Radeon runs at a base of 780 MHz and boosts to 1030 MHz, while the Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz with no boost. The Radeon's memory runs at 1125 MHz, or 4.5 Gbps effective, versus the Quadro's 800 MHz, or 3.2 Gbps effective. The Radeon's higher clocks help close some of the gap, but the Quadro's massive advantages in shader count, texture units, and memory bus width are insurmountable.

Pixel rate favors the Quadro at 11.30 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s. Texture rate likewise favors the Quadro at 45.18 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,084.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither has a listed FP16 rate.

Power characteristics differ as well. The Quadro has a TDP of 75 W, while the Radeon has no TDP listed. The Radeon is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors. The Radeon is designed for systems where the GPU is integrated into the platform, while the Quadro is a modular card intended for workstation laptops.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the Radeon reports 12 (11_1) while the Quadro reports 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions differ slightly: the Radeon supports 1.2.170, the Quadro supports 1.2.175. The Quadro has a slight edge in Vulkan version support, which may explain its comparatively strong Vulkan benchmark result.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the faster GPU in raw compute. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 4.8%, and its hardware specifications are overwhelmingly in its favor: more than double the shading units, four times the TMUs, four times the ROPs, double the memory, four times the memory bus width, and nearly three times the memory bandwidth. Its FP32 compute output of 1,084.4 GFLOPS is 64.5% higher than the Radeon's 659.2 GFLOPS. Anyone needing workstation-class compute performance should pick the Quadro.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is the better choice only in specific circumstances. Its higher boost clock of 1030 MHz versus 706 MHz helps in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks. Its higher average benchmark score of 5859 versus 5154 is a database artifact of the Quadro's weak Metal result, but it does mean the Radeon ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution. For users who will never touch Metal or Vulkan workloads and who want the highest percentile ranking in the database, the Radeon is defensible.

The practical advice is straightforward. The Quadro K3100M is the stronger compute part and the better fit for OpenCL-heavy workstation tasks. The Radeon R5 M435 is a lighter, lower-power IGP solution that trades raw throughput for a simpler integration model. The 4.8% OpenCL gap is not huge, but the underlying hardware differences suggest the Quadro will scale better in sustained or memory-bound workloads. The Radeon's smaller 64 bit memory bus and 36.00 GB/s bandwidth are hard bottlenecks for any serious compute work.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M435's 5859.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256 bit bus, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 has 36.00 GB/s across a 64 bit bus.

Q: Do these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. Neither the AMD Radeon R5 M435 nor the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 has an average benchmark score of 5859, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M averages 5154. The Quadro's average is lowered by its Metal score of 3823.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M435 | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 690 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 780 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 36.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 768 |

| TMUs | 20 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 11.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 45.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 1,084.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2013-07-22 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |