AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K3100M vs AMD Radeon R6 M255DX

The benchmark data presents a clear but narrow comparison between these two mobile graphics processors. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, built on the Kepler architecture, and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, using GCN 1.0, share only one common benchmark result in the database. That single data point, Geekbench Vulkan, shows the Quadro K3100M scoring 5,484 against the R6 M255DX's 4,867, a 12.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The Quadro also holds a broader benchmark profile with three recorded tests, while the AMD part has only one. Beyond that single head-to-head result, the two chips diverge substantially in their internal specifications, memory configurations, and overall positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two products is Geekbench Vulkan. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M delivers a score of 5,484, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX reaches 4,867. The delta of 12.7% puts the Quadro firmly ahead in this specific workload. For context, the Quadro's Vulkan result is 12.7% higher than the R6 M255DX's score, a margin that suggests meaningful real-world differences in Vulkan-based applications and games.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Quadro K3100M's average benchmark score across all tests is 5,154, computed from its three results: 3,823 in Geekbench Metal, 6,154 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 5,484 in Geekbench Vulkan. The R6 M255DX's average is simply its single Vulkan score of 4,867. This means the Quadro's average exceeds the R6's by 287 points, or roughly 5.9%. The Quadro's OpenCL score of 6,154 stands as its strongest result, while its Metal score of 3,823 is its weakest — a notable spread that indicates varying performance across different compute APIs.

When examining the nearest rivals for each product, the picture becomes more nuanced. The Quadro K3100M sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at an average score of 5,161, a mere 0.1% difference. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211 on average, 1.1% ahead of the K3100M, and the GeForce GTX 760M averages 5,236, 1.6% higher. The Radeon R7 240 trails at 5,063, 1.8% behind the K3100M. These tight margins place the Quadro in a densely packed performance cluster.

The R6 M255DX, at the 28th percentile, is surrounded by different competition. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M averages 4,855, just 0.2% behind the R6. The GeForce 940MX scores 4,844, a 0.5% deficit. The GeForce GTS 450 averages 4,893, 0.5% ahead, and the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB posts an average of 4,901, 0.7% higher. This clustering suggests the R6 M255DX performs roughly on par with older or lower-tier discrete mobile GPUs, despite being an integrated part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The R6 M255DX, in contrast, employs the Jet chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a slightly higher density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro K3100M packs 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The R6 M255DX has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. These numbers translate into theoretical throughput figures: the Quadro achieves 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, a pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 45.18 GTexel/s. The R6 M255DX manages 547.2 GFLOPS FP32, 6.840 GPixel/s pixel fill, and 17.10 GTexel/s texture fill. In every measured throughput category, the Quadro is roughly double the R6 — a direct consequence of having 2.4 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The R6 M255DX runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with a boost of 855 MHz, while the Quadro K3100M operates at a flat 706 MHz with no boost. The AMD part's higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller core, but not enough to close the gap. Memory architecture is another fundamental divide: the Quadro uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 3.2 Gbps effective. The R6 M255DX relies entirely on System Shared memory, with its bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This means the AMD part's memory performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration, a significant disadvantage for consistent performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M averages 5,154 across three tests, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX averages 4,867 from a single Vulkan result — a difference of 287 points.

Q: Are these two GPUs in the same performance tier?

A: The percentile rankings are close: the Quadro sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and the R6 M255DX at the 28th. However, their nearest rivals differ, and the head-to-head Vulkan score shows a 12.7% gap.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R6 M255DX uses System Shared memory, with size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, compared to 320 for the R6 M255DX — a 2.4× difference.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro lists DirectX 12 (11_0) while the R6 lists DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, with the Quadro on Vulkan 1.2.175 and the R6 on 1.2.170.

Q: How does the R6 M255DX compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R6 M255DX is nearly identical to the GeForce GTX 560M (0.2% ahead), GeForce 940MX (0.5% ahead), and GeForce GTS 450 (0.5% behind), while trailing the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB by 0.7%.

Specification Differences

The specifications where these two GPUs differ are extensive. The Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, while the R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip with GCN 1.0. The Quadro's generation is "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)" and the R6's is "Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200)." Transistor counts show 3,540 million versus 690 million, and die sizes are 294 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.0M/mm² versus 12.3M/mm².

Clock speeds differ: the Quadro runs at 706 MHz base and boost, while the R6 runs at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost. Memory configurations are completely different — 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth versus System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro's memory clock is 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), while the R6 has no dedicated memory clock.

Compute resources diverge sharply: 768 vs 320 shading units, 64 vs 20 TMUs, and 32 vs 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with MXM-B (3.0) interface; the R6 has no listed TDP and uses an IGP slot and interface. Power connectors are "None" for the Quadro and null for the R6. The Quadro's release date is 2013-07-22, while the R6's is 2014-01-06. The Quadro has a predecessor (Quadro Fermi-M) and successor (Quadro Maxwell-M), while the R6 has neither listed.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M outperforms the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX in the only directly comparable benchmark, with a 12.7% Vulkan advantage. The Quadro also holds a higher average benchmark score (5,154 vs 4,867) and a higher percentile ranking (30th vs 28th). The Quadro's dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth provides a fundamental architectural advantage over the R6's system-shared memory, which is dependent on host system configuration.

The Quadro's 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs more than double the R6's 320, 20, and 8, respectively. This translates to roughly double the FP32 throughput, pixel rate, and texture rate. The R6's higher clock speeds (855 MHz boost vs 706 MHz) cannot compensate for this resource deficit. For users who need consistent, predictable performance in Vulkan-based applications, the Quadro K3100M is the better choice according to the benchmark evidence.

However, the R6 M255DX is not without its merits. It achieves near-parity with several discrete mobile GPUs from NVIDIA, including the GeForce GTX 560M and GeForce 940MX, despite being an integrated part. Its 28th percentile ranking places it only two percentile points below the Quadro, and its nearest rivals are separated by less than 1% in average scores. For systems where dedicated graphics memory is unavailable or unnecessary, the R6 provides a baseline level of 3D capability that matches older discrete options.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in every direct comparison available in the data. Its Vulkan score of 5,484 beats the R6's 4,867 by the only head-to-head margin recorded. It also wins on average benchmark score, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, and memory bandwidth. The Quadro's OpenCL score of 6,154 and Metal score of 3,823 add to its benchmark breadth, giving it three data points versus the R6's one. For workloads that leverage compute APIs like OpenCL, the Quadro's 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance provides a substantial advantage.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX wins in areas that are less about raw performance and more about integration. It has a higher boost clock (855 MHz vs 706 MHz), a slightly higher transistor density (12.3M/mm² vs 12.0M/mm²), and a newer release date (2014-01-06 vs 2013-07-22). Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is slightly newer than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0). The R6 also consumes no dedicated video memory, relying entirely on system RAM, which may simplify system design in hybrid configurations. Its nearest rival comparisons show it performing within 0.7% of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB in average score, though that newer card's inclusion in this cluster likely reflects its low-power integrated positioning rather than direct competition. For systems where the CPU's integrated graphics are the only option and dedicated memory is not available, the R6 M255DX provides the only path forward. For every benchmark and specification where performance matters, the Quadro K3100M takes the win.