AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The data presents a stark contrast between the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, an integrated graphics processor from 2014, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, a dedicated mobile workstation GPU from 2015. The benchmark results are decisive, showing the Quadro M3000M as the overwhelmingly faster part. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head data, architectural differences, and use-case implications based solely on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M posts a score of 16,668, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX manages just 4,867. This translates to a delta of -70.8% for the AMD part, meaning the Quadro M3000M is roughly 3.4 times faster in this specific test. The magnitude of this lead is enormous, not a marginal victory but a generational gap in compute capability.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the gulf widens further. The Quadro M3000M also has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,646, which is nearly identical to its Vulkan result. This consistency across different compute APIs suggests a stable and highly capable architecture. In contrast, the R6 M255DX has only the single Vulkan score to its name, offering no additional data points for cross-API comparison.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar, though slightly less dramatic, story. The Quadro M3000M's average score is 4,621, while the R6 M255DX averages 4,867. This is a peculiar inversion where the AMD part has a higher average despite being crushed in the direct Vulkan comparison. This is explained by the different sets of benchmarks each card was subjected to; the Quadro M3000M includes many additional Passmark tests, including G2D (score 402), G3D (score 5,543), and GPU Compute (score 2,139), which pull its average down, while the R6 M255DX's average is based solely on its single Vulkan score.

To put the Quadro M3000M's performance into perspective, its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, which scores 4,628 on average, a delta of -0.1%. This places the Quadro M3000M in the same performance tier as a well-known gaming laptop chip. Conversely, the R6 M255DX's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, with a score of 4,893, showing the AMD integrated part is competing with entry-level discrete GPUs from a previous generation. The R6 M255DX sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M3000M sits at the 27th, indicating that despite the Quadro's dominance in the Vulkan test, its overall benchmark suite includes legacy tests that lower its standing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different designs. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses the "Jet" chip, based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Its integrated nature means it shares system memory and has no dedicated VRAM; the memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This is the core of its limitation—it relies on slow system RAM for all graphics data.

In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M utilizes the "GM204" chip, based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip is massive in comparison, containing 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, versus the AMD's 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The transistor density is comparable (13.1M / mm² for NVIDIA vs. 12.3M / mm² for AMD), but the sheer scale of the NVIDIA chip is what matters. It has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a dedicated, high-speed pipeline that the AMD IGP cannot access.

The compute resources are also vastly different. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The R6 M255DX has only 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 3.2x difference in shader count directly translates to the raw compute advantage seen in the benchmarks. The clock speeds are also higher on the NVIDIA part, with a base of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz, compared to the AMD's 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost.

The feature sets differ as well. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R6 M255DX supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part also includes newer API support, which can be critical for compatibility with modern applications. The Quadro M3000M is a PCIe 3.0 x16 card in an MXM module form factor with a TDP of 75 W, while the R6 M255DX is an IGP with no separate power connectors. The NVIDIA part is a professional mobile workstation component, while the AMD part is a low-power integrated solution.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has no wins. It loses the only head-to-head test by a staggering margin. Its only claim to a higher standing is its average benchmark score of 4,867, which is higher than the Quadro M3000M's 4,621, but this is an artifact of the different test suites and does not represent a real-world performance victory.

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins everywhere that compute performance matters. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, it is 70.8% faster. Its dedicated memory and high bandwidth make it suitable for any graphics-intensive task. The Passmark G3D score of 5,543 further supports its capability in 3D rendering workloads. The Quadro M3000M is the clear winner for any application that demands GPU compute power.

The only place the AMD R6 M255DX could be considered a "winner" is in power consumption and simplicity, as it is an integrated part with no separate power connectors. However, the fact pack provides no TDP for the AMD part, so a direct power comparison cannot be made. The Quadro M3000M's TDP is listed as 75 W, but without an equivalent figure for the AMD, no conclusion can be drawn. The R6 M255DX's integrated nature means it is simpler and likely draws less power, but this is not quantified in the data.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior product for any task where GPU performance matters. It delivers over three times the performance in the Vulkan benchmark and has dedicated GDDR5 memory, which is essential for modern games and professional applications. Anyone considering these two parts for a GPU-intensive workload should choose the Quadro M3000M without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX is a legacy integrated graphics processor. Its performance is in the same ballpark as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and GeForce 940MX, both of which are older or low-end discrete parts. It is only suitable for basic display output and very light, non-demanding tasks. Its higher average benchmark score is a statistical quirk, not a sign of superiority.

The Quadro M3000M's closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 970M, which is a high-end gaming GPU. This shows that the Quadro M3000M is not just a professional card; it has the raw performance to handle demanding consumer workloads as well. The R6 M255DX, on the other hand, is akin to the GeForce GTS 450, a product from a much older era.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is significantly faster, scoring 16,668 versus the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX's 4,867, a difference of -70.8% for the AMD part.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s, achieved via a 256-bit bus and 5 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has only 320.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has an average benchmark score of 4,867, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an average score of 4,621.

Q: What is the process node for both chips?

A: Both the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX's "Jet" chip and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M's "GM204" chip are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R6 M255DX | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Jet | GM204 |

| Transistors | 690 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Base Clock | 780 MHz | 823 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 855 MHz | 924 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 20 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.840 GPixel/s | 29.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.10 GTexel/s | 59.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 547.2 GFLOPS | 1.892 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-01-06 | 2015-08-17 |