AMD Radeon R7 240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and AMD Radeon R7 240 are two end-of-life graphics cards from 2013, aimed at different segments of the market. The Quadro is a mobile workstation module, while the R7 240 is a low-profile desktop card. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, with the NVIDIA part taking a decisive victory, but the architectural and feature differences between the two tell a more nuanced story about their intended use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The data provides only one direct benchmark comparison, but it is a significant one. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins the sole head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 6154 against the AMD Radeon R7 240's 5063. This is a 21.5% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card, indicating a substantial performance advantage in compute workloads.

Beyond the single direct comparison, the overall benchmark averages reinforce this picture. The Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5154 across three tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), while the R7 240 only has a single OpenCL score of 5063. The Quadro also edges out the R7 240 in the nearestRivals list, with a deltaPct of 1.8% when comparing their average scores.

However, the R7 240 does have one clear advantage: power consumption. Its TDP is 30 W, compared to the Quadro's 75 W. This makes the AMD card significantly more efficient per watt, suggesting it wins in scenarios where power draw and heat output are the primary constraints, such as in small form factor systems or media center PCs. The R7 240 also requires no auxiliary power connectors and only suggests a 200 W PSU, while the Quadro's MXM module form factor is entirely different.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 240 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, resulting in a higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm².

These differences translate to dramatically different compute resources. The Quadro has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240 has only 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This explains the NVIDIA card's higher theoretical performance figures: its pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s versus 6.240 GPixel/s, its texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, and its FP32 compute is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The Quadro K3100M features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, offering only 28.80 GB/s. This is a massive gap in memory bandwidth that heavily favors the NVIDIA card in memory-intensive workloads. Clock speeds are closer, with the Quadro running at a fixed 706 MHz (base and boost), while the R7 240 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 780 MHz. The AMD card's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro's runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063. This represents a 21.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Quadro's additional shading units, TMUs, and memory bandwidth translate directly into better OpenCL compute performance.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro K3100M also has scores in two other tests that the R7 240 does not have data for: Geekbench Metal (3823) and Geekbench Vulkan (5484). These additional scores contribute to its average of 5154, which is slightly above the R7 240's single-test average of 5063. The variance between the Quadro's own scores is notable: its Vulkan score (5484) is significantly higher than its Metal score (3823), suggesting the card's performance is highly dependent on the API and driver optimization.

In the nearestRivals comparison, the Quadro K3100M sits at 1.8% above the R7 240 in average score. However, this percentage is based on the Quadro's multi-test average versus the R7 240's single test, so the direct comparison is more meaningful. The Quadro's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (deltaPct -0.1%), while the R7 240's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (deltaPct 0%), showing both cards sit in a similar performance tier among their peers.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is significantly faster, scoring 6154 versus the AMD Radeon R7 240's 5063 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, a 21.5% difference.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K3100M has a TDP of 75 W, while the R7 240 has a TDP of 30 W. The AMD card is much more power-efficient.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 240 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support similar APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0), while the R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the physical form factors?

A: The Quadro K3100M is an MXM Module (MXM-B 3.0 interface), while the R7 240 is a Single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Q: Which card has more compute units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M in pure performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 21.5%, has higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute, and offers far superior memory bandwidth. The Quadro also has a higher average benchmark score (5154 vs 5063) and sits at a higher percentile rank among its nearest rivals.

However, the AMD Radeon R7 240 is not without merit. Its 30 W TDP makes it a compelling choice for systems where power draw is critical, and its smaller 77 mm² die means it can fit in more compact form factors. The R7 240 also has a higher base clock (730 MHz vs 706 MHz) and boost clock (780 MHz vs 706 MHz), though this does not compensate for its fewer compute resources.

For users who need maximum compute performance in a mobile workstation, the Quadro K3100M is the clear choice. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for professional workloads like CAD, 3D rendering, and scientific computing. The R7 240, with its lower power draw and simpler single-slot design, is better suited for basic desktop tasks, media playback, or as a display adapter in low-power systems. The data shows these are not direct competitors; they serve different purposes, with the Quadro offering workstation-class performance and the R7 240 offering efficiency and simplicity.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | Oland |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 780 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 20 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.30 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.18 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,084.4 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Sea Islands |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Pirate Islands |