AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data in the database gives the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M a clear overall win. Across the two shared tests, the Quadro K3100M wins both, with an average benchmark score of 5154 versus 4499 for the AMD Radeon R7 M260, a difference of 655 points. The Quadro K3100M sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M260 sits in the 26th percentile, confirming the Quadro holds a higher overall standing. For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile parts, the Quadro K3100M is the performance pick, while the R7 M260 is only viable if its specific feature set (like newer DirectX 12_0 support) matters more than raw compute.

The Quadro K3100M is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads and for anyone needing OpenCL or Vulkan performance. Its 66% lead in OpenCL is massive, and even in Vulkan it edges ahead by 3.7%. The R7 M260, however, does offer a newer DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0), which could matter for certain modern API workloads, but the data does not show a benchmark win for AMD in any recorded test. There is no scenario in the recorded measurements where the R7 M260 wins a head-to-head test, so the verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K3100M is the superior performer.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and designs. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip based on GCN 3.0, also built by TSMC on 28 nm, but with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, for a density of 12.4M per mm². The K3100M has more than double the transistor count and a much larger die, indicating a more complex and capable design.

The compute resources differ sharply. The Quadro K3100M features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This means the Quadro has double the shading units, over 2.6 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. Clock speeds tell a different story: the R7 M260 runs at a base of 940 MHz and a boost of 980 MHz, while the Quadro K3100M is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Quadro's larger resource pool delivers far higher fill rates and compute throughput.

Memory architecture also diverges completely. The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 7.1 times bandwidth advantage for the Quadro, which heavily impacts memory-bound workloads. The memory clocks are 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) for the Quadro versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the AMD part, but the bus width difference dominates the bandwidth calculation.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0) with an MXM Module slot width, while the R7 M260 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The Quadro has no power connectors and a TDP of 75 W, while the R7 M260 has no recorded TDP or power connector data. In terms of API support, the Quadro offers DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The R7 M260 offers DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level, while the Quadro has a slightly newer Vulkan version.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins both. The most decisive result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro scores 6154 against the R7 M260's 3708. That is a delta of 66%, meaning the Quadro delivers roughly two-thirds more performance in this compute test. This is a dominant margin, driven by the Quadro's higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and far greater bandwidth.

The second shared test is Geekbench Vulkan. Here the Quadro K3100M scores 5484, and the R7 M260 scores 5289. The delta is only 3.7%, a narrow but consistent win for NVIDIA. The Vulkan gap is much smaller than the OpenCL gap, suggesting that the AMD part is relatively more competitive in this API, possibly due to its newer DirectX 12_0 feature level or the architecture's different scheduling behavior. Still, the recorded data shows no test where the R7 M260 takes the lead.

The Quadro K3100M also has a third benchmark result in Geekbench Metal with a score of 3823, which the R7 M260 does not have. This adds to the Quadro's average but is not a head-to-head comparison. The average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture: the Quadro averages 5154 across three tests, while the R7 M260 averages 4499 across two tests. The nearest rivals in the database confirm the positioning: the Quadro is closest to the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, -0.1%), NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1.1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236, -1.6%). The R7 M260 is closest to the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505, -0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, -1.3%), and AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, -1.5%). The Quadro competes with stronger parts, while the R7 M260 sits in a lower bracket.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5154, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 averages 4499. The Quadro leads by 655 points.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro K3100M scores 6154 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 3708 for the R7 M260, a 66% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M260 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Quadro K3100M wins both. The wins count is 2 for the Quadro and 0 for the R7 M260.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The R7 M260 has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a newer DirectX feature level?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The AMD part has the higher feature level.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, while the R7 M260 has 384 shading units. The Quadro has exactly double the count.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in every measurable compute category. Its 66% lead in OpenCL makes it the clear choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications, such as general-purpose GPU compute, video encoding, or scientific workloads that leverage this API. The 3.7% lead in Vulkan, while smaller, still favors the Quadro for Vulkan-based rendering or compute tasks. The Quadro also has a Geekbench Metal score of 3823, which gives it an edge for macOS or Metal-based workflows, though the R7 M260 has no Metal score recorded for comparison.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it does have a feature advantage: DirectX 12 (12_0) support versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the R7 M260 is better positioned for applications that specifically require DirectX 12_0 features, such as certain modern game engines or compute frameworks that target that feature level. The R7 M260 also has a smaller die (125 mm² versus 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,550 million versus 3,540 million), which could imply lower power draw, but the database records no TDP for the AMD part, so this cannot be confirmed with data.

For practical use, the Quadro K3100M is the pick for any workload where raw throughput, memory bandwidth, or compute density matters. The R7 M260 is only preferable in scenarios where its newer DirectX feature level is a hard requirement, and even then the performance deficit in OpenCL and Vulkan would likely outweigh that benefit in most applications. The data simply does not support choosing the R7 M260 for performance reasons.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses the Topaz chip with GCN 3.0. Both use a 28 nm TSMC process, but the Quadro has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, versus 1,550 million on 125 mm² for the R7 M260. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.4M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds favor AMD: the R7 M260 runs at 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost, while the Quadro K3100M runs at 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro uses 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) GDDR5, while the R7 M260 uses 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) DDR3. Memory capacity is 4 GB for the Quadro versus 2 GB for the R7 M260. The bus width is 256-bit for the Quadro and 64-bit for the R7 M260, leading to a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Quadro: 768 shading units versus 384, 64 TMUs versus 24, and 32 ROPs versus 8. Pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 7.840 GPixel/s for the R7 M260. Texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 23.52 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,084.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 752.6 GFLOPS for the R7 M260. The R7 M260 has FP16 performance of 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 value.

Power and physical design differ: the Quadro 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 R7 M260 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or display output data, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan: the Quadro has DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 M260 has DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Release dates differ as well: the Quadro launched on 2013-07-22, while the R7 M260 launched on 2014-06-10. Both are end-of-life products.