AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics from different eras, with the data showing a narrow but definitive edge for the NVIDIA part in the single benchmark test where they overlap. The R7 M260, built on GCN 3.0, and the Quadro K3000M, built on Kepler, both target the 28 nm process node and are now end-of-life products, but their architectural priorities and performance profiles diverge significantly. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3000M scores 4241 against the R7 M260’s 3708, a margin of 12.6% in favor of the NVIDIA part, which is a substantial gap when considering the two GPUs were released roughly two years apart.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it decisively favors the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M. The Quadro scores 4241 points, while the Radeon R7 M260 manages 3708, resulting in a delta of -12.6% for the AMD part. This is not a marginal difference; it places the Quadro K3000M comfortably ahead in raw compute workloads that stress the GPU’s ability to execute parallel operations. The Quadro’s win is particularly notable because its base and boost clocks are both locked at 654 MHz, significantly lower than the R7 M260’s 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost, yet it still outperforms the AMD chip by double digits. This indicates that the Quadro’s advantage comes from its wider memory interface and higher shading unit count, not from raw clock speed.

The R7 M260 does have a counterpoint in the form of a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289, but the Quadro K3000M has no corresponding Vulkan result in the data, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible. However, the AMD part’s Vulkan score can be contextualized against its own OpenCL result; the Vulkan score is roughly 42.7% higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the GCN 3.0 architecture is well-optimized for Vulkan workloads. For the Quadro, the absence of a Vulkan score means its compatibility with modern APIs is less proven in this dataset, even though it supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a slightly newer version than the R7 M260’s 1.2.170.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro K3000M’s average benchmark score of 4241 places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260’s average score of 4499 puts it at the 26th percentile. This is a curious inversion: the R7 M260 has a higher average score because its two benchmark results (3708 and 5289) are averaged together, whereas the Quadro only has one result. Yet in the head-to-head test, the Quadro wins. The nearest rival data reinforces the picture. The R7 M260’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W4190M, which scores 4505 and is only 0.1% faster, effectively a statistical tie. The Quadro K3000M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 3, which scores 4268 and is 0.6% faster, also essentially a tie. Both GPUs are clustered with integrated graphics and low-end discrete parts, confirming their entry-level positioning.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the clear winner in the only benchmark where both are measured, and it should be the preferred choice for users whose primary workload is OpenCL-based compute. The 12.6% lead is significant enough to affect real-world performance in applications that rely on this API, such as certain scientific simulations or video encoding tasks. The Quadro also offers a higher pixel rate (7.848 GPixel/s versus 7.840 GPixel/s) and a substantially higher texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s), which means it should handle texture-heavy workloads more efficiently. Its memory bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s over a 256-bit bus dwarfs the R7 M260’s 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit bus, a 522% advantage that is critical for large datasets.

However, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is not without merit for specific use cases. Its Vulkan score of 5289 is excellent, and if a user’s software stack is Vulkan-centric, the data suggests the R7 M260 could outperform the Quadro, though no direct comparison exists. The R7 M260 also has a higher base clock (940 MHz versus 654 MHz) and a boost clock (980 MHz versus 654 MHz), which could translate to better performance in latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale perfectly with core count. For gaming, the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the AMD part is technically more forward-compatible for titles that require the newer feature level.

The verdict hinges on the workload. For OpenCL compute and professional applications, the Quadro K3000M is the superior choice, as evidenced by its direct benchmark victory and its 576 shading units versus the R7 M260’s 384. For Vulkan-based workloads or users prioritizing newer API support and higher clock speeds, the R7 M260 is the better option, though this conclusion is inferred from its Vulkan score rather than a direct head-to-head result. The Quadro’s 75 W TDP is specified, while the R7 M260’s is not, but the Quadro’s MXM Module form factor and lack of power connectors suggest it is designed for larger laptops, whereas the R7 M260’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface implies a more flexible integration path.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins, scoring 4241 points against the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s 3708, a margin of 12.6%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, it has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289, but the Quadro K3000M has no Vulkan score in the data, so a direct comparison is not possible.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 89.60 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the R7 M260 has 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the R7 M260 has 384 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The R7 M260 has a boost clock of 980 MHz, compared to the Quadro K3000M’s boost clock of 654 MHz.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The R7 M260 is at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K3000M is at the 25th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several core specifications. The R7 M260 uses a 64-bit memory bus, while the Quadro K3000M uses a 256-bit bus. This leads to a massive difference in memory bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s for the AMD part versus 89.60 GB/s for the NVIDIA part. The memory type also differs, with the R7 M260 using DDR3 and the Quadro K3000M using GDDR5. Both have 2 GB of memory, but the effective memory clock is 1800 Mbps for the R7 M260 and 2.8 Gbps for the Quadro K3000M.

The clock speeds are another key differentiator. The R7 M260 runs at 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost, while the Quadro K3000M is locked at 654 MHz for both base and boost. The shading unit counts are 384 for the AMD part and 576 for the NVIDIA part, and the texture mapping units are 24 versus 48, respectively. The R7 M260 has 8 ROPs, while the Quadro K3000M has 32 ROPs. The pixel rates are nearly identical (7.840 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s), but the texture rate differs: 23.52 GTexel/s for the R7 M260 and 31.39 GTexel/s for the Quadro K3000M. The FP32 performance is also very close, at 752.6 GFLOPS for the R7 M260 and 753.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro K3000M. The R7 M260 has an FP16 performance of 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro K3000M has no listed FP16 value. The TDP is listed only for the Quadro K3000M at 75 W, and the form factor is MXM Module for the NVIDIA part, with no equivalent listed for the AMD part. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R7 M260 and MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro K3000M. Finally, the DirectX support differs: the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the two GPUs is stark. The R7 M260 is built on AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture, with a chip codenamed Topaz, while the Quadro K3000M uses NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, with a GK104 chip. The manufacturing process is identical at 28 nm, and both are fabricated by TSMC, but the transistor counts are vastly different: the R7 M260 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.4 million transistors per mm². The Quadro K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². Despite having more than double the transistors and a larger die, the Quadro’s FP32 performance is only 0.1% higher than the R7 M260’s, which suggests the Kepler architecture was less efficient in raw compute per transistor.

The R7 M260 is part of the Gem System generation (R7 M200), while the Quadro K3000M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. The R7 M260’s predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile; the Quadro K3000M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. The release dates differ by roughly two years, with the R7 M260 launching on 2014-06-10 and the Quadro K3000M on 2012-05-31. The R7 M260 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Quadro K3000M has no FP16 support listed. The API support is similar, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, though the Vulkan versions differ slightly (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA). The R7 M260 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, or display outputs, while the Quadro K3000M is specified with a 75 W TDP, an MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The transistor density is nearly identical, but the architectural philosophies are clearly different: AMD opted for a smaller, more power-efficient chip with higher clocks, while NVIDIA chose a larger chip with more cores and a wider memory bus.