AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and NVIDIA Quadro K3100M are near-perfect statistical twins in aggregate performance, with the AMD part holding a 0.1% average benchmark score advantage (5161 vs 5154). Despite this virtual tie, the data reveals a clear functional split: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M dominates in raw compute workloads, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X offers a more modern feature set and superior API compatibility for its era. Both GPUs sit at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, placing them in the entry-level mobile segment, but their architectural philosophies and memory configurations create distinct use cases that go beyond their similar average scores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins decisively in compute throughput. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 6154 against the Radeon's 5690, a 7.5% advantage. The gap widens further in Vulkan, where the Quadro posts 5484 versus 4631 for the AMD part, a 15.6% lead. These are the only two head-to-head benchmarks available, and the Quadro wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in direct comparison.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins in the broader compatibility arena. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro K3100M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part's higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0) means better support for certain modern rendering techniques. Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6, but the AMD card's newer generation (Gem System from the R7 M200 series) and later release date (December 2015 vs July 2013) give it a longer software support window. For users prioritizing legacy application compatibility and newer API features over raw compute, the Radeon holds the edge.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, also on 28 nm TSMC, but with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die — a 12.0M per mm² density. The Quadro's die is nearly four times larger and holds 3.7 times more transistors.

This scale difference translates directly into compute resources. The Quadro K3100M packs 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon R7 M260X counters with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has exactly double the shading units and ROPs, and 2.7 times the TMUs. Pixel rate tells the story: 11.30 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the Radeon — roughly a 98% advantage. Texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, a 163% lead. FP32 compute is 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS, again nearly double.

Clock speeds differ modestly. The Quadro runs at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost, while the Radeon has a 620 MHz base with a 715 MHz boost — meaning the AMD chip actually exceeds the NVIDIA part's clock under load. Memory clocks diverge more significantly: the Radeon runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the Quadro runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective. Neither GPU has dedicated RT or tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the Quadro K3100M outperforming the Radeon R7 M260X by 7.5% (6154 vs 5690). This aligns with the Quadro's double FP32 throughput and higher memory bandwidth. The Radeon's higher boost clock (715 MHz vs 706 MHz) cannot compensate for the Quadro's 2x shading unit count and 2.7x TMU count.

The Vulkan benchmark delivers a larger margin: the Quadro wins 5484 vs 4631, a 15.6% delta. This wider gap suggests the Quadro's Kepler architecture scales better with the Vulkan API's low-level access patterns, particularly in geometry-heavy workloads where its 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs provide substantial headroom. The Radeon's GCN 1.0 architecture, while supporting a newer Vulkan version (1.2.170 vs 1.2.175 — a trivial difference), cannot match the raw throughput.

In the nearest rivals comparison, both GPUs cluster tightly. The Radeon R7 M260X sits 1% above the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211) and 1.4% above the GeForce GTX 760M (5236), while trailing the Radeon R7 240 by 1.9% (5063). The Quadro K3100M shows a nearly identical pattern: 1.1% above the Quadro 4000M, 1.6% above the GTX 760M, and 1.8% above the R7 240. This confirms both parts occupy the same performance tier, with the Quadro's compute advantages offset by the Radeon's architectural efficiencies.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystem separates these two most clearly. The Radeon R7 M260X has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth — four times the capacity and 60% more bandwidth. This makes the Quadro substantially better for large data sets or high-resolution textures.

The bus interface differs: the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). The power profile is notable — the Quadro has a rated TDP of 75 W, while the Radeon has no listed TDP. Both use no external power connectors. The Quadro's slot width is listed as "MXM Module," while the Radeon's is unspecified. Both have portable device dependent display outputs.

The transistor counts highlight the design philosophy gap: 3,540 million for the Quadro versus 950 million for the Radeon. The AMD chip's smaller size (77 mm² vs 294 mm²) suggests lower manufacturing costs and potentially better power efficiency per transistor, though the Quadro's 75 W TDP is the only power figure available. The Radeon's release date of December 2015 comes 29 months after the Quadro's July 2013 debut.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161, slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M's 5154, a 0.1% difference.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins the Vulkan benchmark 5484 to 4631, a 15.6% margin in favor of the Quadro.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon R7 M260X has 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, exactly double the 384 shading units found in the AMD Radeon R7 M260X.

Q: How do the DirectX versions compare?

A: The Radeon R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), giving the AMD part a higher feature level.

Q: What transistor counts do these chips use?

A: The Quadro K3100M's GK104 chip has 3,540 million transistors, while the Radeon R7 M260X's Opal chip has 950 million transistors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: pick the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M for compute-heavy workloads, and pick the AMD Radeon R7 M260X for API compatibility and newer feature support. The Quadro wins both available head-to-head benchmarks, with a 7.5% OpenCL lead and a 15.6% Vulkan lead. Its 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, 4 GB capacity, and double the shading units make it the superior choice for rendering, data processing, and any task that benefits from raw throughput.

The Radeon R7 M260X's case rests on its 0.1% higher average benchmark score (5161 vs 5154) and its more modern API support. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level exceeds the Quadro's 12 (11_0), and its later release date (December 2015 vs July 2013) suggests better long-term driver optimization for contemporary software. For users running applications that leverage these newer API features, the Radeon's slightly better average score and compatibility could be more relevant than the Quadro's raw compute dominance.

The practical reality is that these GPUs are statistically equivalent in aggregate — the 0.1% average score difference is negligible. The Quadro K3100M's advantages in memory (4 GB vs 1 GB, 102.4 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s) and compute resources (768 vs 384 shading units) are decisive for professional workloads. The Radeon's advantages are narrower: a higher DirectX feature level, a marginally higher boost clock (715 MHz vs 706 MHz), and a smaller die (77 mm² vs 294 mm²) that implies lower power draw per operation, though no TDP is listed for the Radeon to confirm this.

For mobile workstations, the Quadro K3100M is the data-backed recommendation. Its 75 W TDP, MXM-B (3.0) interface, and professional Kepler lineage align with workstation usage patterns. The Radeon R7 M260X, with its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and consumer-oriented GCN 1.0 architecture, suits general-purpose laptops where API compatibility matters more than peak compute. Both GPUs sit at the 30th percentile, so neither is a high-end option — but within their tier, the Quadro's benchmark wins and memory advantages make it the stronger all-rounder, with the Radeon's edge limited to specific software compatibility scenarios.