AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a single benchmark score for each part, and they do not run the same test. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX was measured with Geekbench Vulkan and returned a score of 4867, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M was measured with Geekbench OpenCL and returned a score of 4241. Because the workloads differ, a direct score comparison is not possible, but the percentile rankings place each GPU in context. The AMD part sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 25th percentile. That means the AMD chip edges ahead in overall standing, though both are firmly in the lower half of the database.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, its 4867 score is 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855) and 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893) by 0.5% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) by 0.7%. The interesting takeaway is how tightly clustered these results are: the entire spread from the weakest rival to the strongest rival is less than 1.5%. This suggests the R6 M255DX lands in a narrow performance band where small percentage swings define the ordering.

For the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, its 4241 score is 0.6% below the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268) and 1% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282). It also trails the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) by 1.3%. However, it beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) by 1.2%. Again, the rivals are packed tightly, with deltas ranging from -1.3% to +1.2%. The K3000M is not a standout in either direction; it is simply another entry in a dense mid-low tier.

The data shows no head-to-head benchmark entries, meaning the database has not recorded a single shared test where both GPUs ran the same workload. The wins count is zero for both parts. This is a case where the comparison must rely on architectural characteristics and the percentile context rather than direct numerical superiority. The AMD part has a higher raw benchmark score, but the NVIDIA part runs a different test, so the numbers cannot be subtracted or divided. What can be said is that the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX ranks higher in the overall distribution, which is a meaningful signal even if the tests differ.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is dramatically larger and more complex, with over five times the transistor count. That said, the AMD part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the NVIDIA part is a discrete mobile module (MXM), so the physical design goals differ fundamentally.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has nearly double the shading units, 2.4 times the TMUs, and four times the ROPs. In terms of raw throughput, the NVIDIA part reaches a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s versus the AMD's 6.840 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating is 753.4 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part and 547.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part. Across every throughput metric, the Quadro K3000M is ahead by a substantial margin, ranging from roughly 15% in pixel rate to over 80% in texture rate.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX runs at a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is locked at 654 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD part has a 19% higher boost clock, which partially compensates for its smaller execution resource pool. Memory configurations are also completely different. The AMD part uses system shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA part has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory clock is 700 MHz, translating to 2.8 Gbps effective.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the AMD part supports 11_1 while the NVIDIA part supports 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is present on both, with the AMD part at version 1.2.170 and the NVIDIA part at 1.2.175. The NVIDIA part has a slight edge in Vulkan version. The AMD part is from the Gem System Hybrid generation (Rx M200), while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx000M). The NVIDIA part has a predecessor (Quadro Fermi-M) and a successor (Quadro Maxwell-M), while the AMD part has neither listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4867, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4241. Because the tests differ, direct comparison is not valid, but the AMD part ranks at the 28th percentile versus the NVIDIA part's 25th percentile.

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

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is within 0.7% of all four of its nearest rivals, with the strongest showing being a 0.5% lead over the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is within 1.3% of its four nearest rivals, with its best result being a 1.2% lead over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, compared to 320 for the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX. The NVIDIA part also has more texture mapping units (48 versus 20) and more raster operations units (32 versus 8).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses system shared memory, meaning its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX was released in January 2014, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M was released in May 2012.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The difference is minor, and both are on version 1.2.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture. The AMD part has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the NVIDIA part has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical at 12.3M per mm² for AMD and 12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds differ notably. The AMD part has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a fixed 654 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD part's memory clock is listed as system shared, while the NVIDIA part runs its memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Memory size is system shared for AMD versus 2 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type is system shared versus GDDR5. Bus width is system shared versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is system dependent versus 89.60 GB/s.

Compute resources differ sharply. The AMD part has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s for AMD and 7.848 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s for AMD and 31.39 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance is 547.2 GFLOPS for AMD and 753.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power and physical configuration differ as well. The AMD part has no TDP listed and is an IGP with an IGP bus interface. The NVIDIA part has a TDP of 75 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The AMD part belongs to the Gem System Hybrid generation, while the NVIDIA part belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor and successor, the AMD part does not. Both support DirectX 12, but AMD supports 11_1 while NVIDIA supports 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions are 1.2.170 for AMD and 1.2.175 for NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX wins on benchmark percentile. It sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's 25th percentile. It also has a higher boost clock (855 MHz versus 654 MHz) and a newer release date (January 2014 versus May 2012). In terms of API support, the AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the NVIDIA part's DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a minor but real advantage. The AMD part is an IGP, meaning it requires no dedicated power connectors and no separate memory allocation, which makes it suitable for systems where space and power budgets are extremely tight.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins on raw compute throughput. It has 576 shading units versus 320, 48 TMUs versus 20, and 32 ROPs versus 8. Its FP32 performance is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS, a 38% advantage. The texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s is 84% higher than the AMD part's 17.10 GTexel/s. The pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s is 15% higher. The NVIDIA part also has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a decisive advantage over system shared memory whose bandwidth is system dependent. The NVIDIA part's 75 W TDP is listed, meaning it is a known quantity for thermal design, whereas the AMD part's TDP is unlisted.

The use cases split accordingly. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is better for an integrated, low-footprint system where the CPU and GPU share memory and the user accepts system-dependent performance. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is better for a mobile workstation module where dedicated memory and higher compute throughput matter more than the integrated simplicity of the AMD part. The NVIDIA part's higher ROP count and texture rate suggest it will handle fill-rate-bound workloads better, while the AMD part's higher boost clock may help in lightly threaded or short-burst tasks.

The Verdict

The data does not support a single winner because the two GPUs were tested with different benchmarks. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX holds a higher percentile rank (28th versus 25th) and a higher raw score (4867 versus 4241), but those numbers come from Vulkan and OpenCL tests respectively, so they are not directly comparable. What is clear is that the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a massively larger execution resource pool: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs against the AMD part's 320, 20, and 8. Its FP32 output of 753.4 GFLOPS and texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s are far beyond the AMD part's 547.2 GFLOPS and 17.10 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part also has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD part relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is the pick for a system where the GPU must be integrated into the processor package, with no separate memory and no power connector. Its higher boost clock and newer release date are secondary advantages. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the pick for a mobile workstation where dedicated memory and higher throughput are required, and where the 75 W TDP is acceptable. The NVIDIA part's predecessor and successor lineage also indicates a defined product lifecycle, while the AMD part has no such lineage listed.

For a practical builder, the choice hinges on the platform. If the system has an MXM slot and needs a discrete GPU with its own VRAM, the Quadro K3000M is the stronger option on paper. If the system relies on an integrated GPU and cannot accommodate a discrete module, the Radeon R6 M255DX is the only viable option of the two. The benchmark data does not break the tie, but the architecture and specification differences make the NVIDIA part the more capable compute device, while the AMD part is the more integrated and clock-agile solution. Both are end-of-life, so availability and platform compatibility will likely dictate the final decision.